User talk:Adam Carr/Arborealoids

Arborealoids

I'm not sure to be pleased or worried that my Arborealoids has survived 24 hours without being deleted or even questioned. This little experiment does seem to confirm my suspicion that a great deal of nonsense sneaks its way into Wikipedia undetected. On the other hand, it's no sillier than Reptilian humanoid, from which it draws inspiration. Adam 11:11, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's deleted now. Dysprosia 11:17, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That's exactly what I simply can't believe. I vote for undeletion so that people can have a look at it. How on earth could we ever make sure that such things do not seriously happen if we cannot examine them? Whyt have we got pages like "deleted nonsense" for? --KF 11:21, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, that's probably a good idea. I couldn't find the page before, sorry. Dysprosia 11:28, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Here, at the bottom Dysprosia 11:30, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Maybe we all know you as a great editor and thus noone bothered to check that new article, as noone expected Adam Carr to write nonsense. It might have had a different fate if it came from an anonymous IP or a new user. But I agree with your basic statement that too much vandalism, nonsense or bad articles slip out through the Recent Changes and New Pages monitoring. andy 11:20, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Note that you added the article as you, not as an anonymous user and not as someone with a record of such edits. I suspect the article may have been noticed faster if that were not the case. (Ooo, wow, some comment as andy, but I'll add it anyway despite being second after the edit conflict.) Daniel Quinlan 11:24, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

I moved the article to Wikipedia:Arborealoids so people can take a look. Right after I did that, someone redeleted it (as I was planning to do, actually, since I don't think we need or want to leave invalid information in the main article space for this discussion). Daniel Quinlan 11:32, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

I've just moved it to bad jokes via the link above. Ok to redelete the article in the Wikipedia namespace? I just think it's pointless to have crud like that floating around, but (You all are too fast :) apologies as to people wanting to take a look before, probably was a bit hasty Dysprosia 11:36, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

All of which begs the question: Why is Reptilian humanoid still here? Bmills 11:45, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Bizarre as it may seem to most people, there really are people out there publicly declaring that reptilian humanoids exist. The article notes who these people are and states these beliefs are not accepted by the mainstream, so I think it's a useful article debunking a ridiculous idea. MK 12:38 (EST) 12 November 2003

Edits by trusted users typically make it past RC and only get picked up at the second line: watchlists and random reviews. That's because RC junkies (like what I was for a while) typically know who they can trust and who they can't. The frequency of random reviews depends on how visible the article is. I once inserted a joke into Water, and it lasted 10 days. However an orphan with an obscure title could have easily remained for months. -- Tim Starling 11:47, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

Well I'm flattered that you all think my stuff is so wonderful that it doesn't need to be checked. I guess I've blown my gold-star rating. But Bmills is right - I actually started Arborealoids not to expose WP's procedures but to draw attention to Reptilian humanoid and all of Khranus's other garbage, which discredits WP more than a dozen joke articles. Adam 11:58, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Oh, so you intended it as a publicity stunt, but no-one noticed? That's so sad, my heart bleeds for you ;) Next time you wish to pull a publicity stunt, be sure to link to your article from many prominent locations. Or create a sock puppet user account to list it on VFD. -- Tim Starling 12:17, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

I guess that makes me no-one? Adam is right to move the conversation back to the main point of what he did. An encyclopedia should be about knowledge, not about fringe lunatic hearsay and half-baked notions that are entirely unverifiable. Maybe this is not the most effective way to make the point, but it was effective enough to have us all here talking about it. Bmills 12:21, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I meant that no-one noticed for a week, forcing him to make a post to Village pump. -- Tim Starling 12:37, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

I don't want to sound too snippy or biased or whatever in saying this, but is the creation of a nonsense article the best way of going about resolving an issue? Dysprosia 12:19, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's a demonstration of Adam's commitment to mature debate. -- Tim Starling 13:18, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

Or perhaps that I am a reptoid. Adam 13:45, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I spotted Arborealoids on 11th Novemeber, but chose not to recommend for deletion because it was just so damn funny! Mind you, I'm also a regular watcher of Reptilian humanoids (which must give me about 8/10 for insanity). DJ Clayworth 20:54, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If there are undetected nonsense pages in Wikipedia, here's one way to ensure they'll be noticed eventually. Have a page that lists articles that have not been viewed by at least three people since the last change. This would preferably be sorted by how long ago the third most recent viewing was (oldest first). The "three people" and "third most recent" are to make it harder for people to "whitewash" their own nonsense; they could view it, but it wouldn't go away until two other people did as well.

Dedicated Wikipedians could check the top articles, which would then migrate off the list. This would work better than Recent Changes and New Pages, because articles that had already been "vetted" would not be on the list.

Tualha 02:05, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

I saw Arborealoids when it was created, and thought about moving it somewhere else, but it was pretty funny, and anyway all the great works of scholarships have inside jokes; someday perhaps I'll create a list of scholarly jokes to clue people in on the most notable ones. Stan 08:05, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

See also the Protocols of the Elderberries of Zion (awaiting development). Adam