The plot for Amazon Women From Mars II.

Hewlett-Packard did much the same under Carly FIorina.

You mixed up the policies. No Original Research is unrelated to why Bjork's Academy Awards dress has it's own Wikipedia article. No Original Research is why the article doesn't contain any new ideas or opinions by the article-writers themselves. The article accurately describes what The World has to say about the dress. The article has 13 sources cited 18 times providing external documentation for almost every sentence in the article.

The policy you wanted was "Wikipedia editors aren't allowed to decide how 'important' a topic is... Wikipedia Notability means that multiple independent Reliable Sources have published significant discussion of the subject." The World decides what is and isn't Notable, not me. As a Wikipedia editor I'm not allowed the opinion that it's embarrassment to humanity that Academy-Awards-Dresses are considered newsworthy. (I can have the opinion, but I can't delete the article based on my opinion.)

The sources include: telegraph.co.uk, shine.yahoo.com, Filmology: A Movie-a-Day Guide to the Movies You Need to Know ISBN 978-1-4405-0753-3, All about Oscar: The History and Politics of the Academy Awards ISBN 978-0-8264-1452-6, Vanity Fair magazine, Spin magazine, New York magazine, Reel Winners: Movie Award Trivia ISBN 978-1-55002-574-3, BjÃrk: wow and flutter ISBN 978-1-55022-556-3, The Advocate magazine, today.msnbc.msn.com. And there is no doubt that there are countless other uncited sources that exist. The World has clearly decided that this topic is worthy of significant published coverage.

By the way, this particular article has been getting around 55 pageviews a day. That's a lot higher than many of our more serious minor topics. Apparently there are a fair number of people coming to Wikipedia searching for this article.

-

The "worldview" is that Wikipedia is supposed to be an Encyclopedia. Wikipedia is the Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit, not a public blog-space. The only thing that prevents Wikipedia from becoming a scribble-board are the Wikipedia Policies, and editor dedication to those policies. If you throw out Wikipedia content-verifiability policies then it would start looking a lot less like an Encyclopedia.

How search works: If you type a search term into Google you'll get random writings about the topic, no matter how trivial. If you type a search term into Wikipedia you'll get an encyclopedia-style article with Verifiable information cited to independent Reliable Sources, if we have one. ~~~~

-

<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines</ref>

-

I was involved in a example of this recently. TheFederalist.com is a one-year-old rightwing website. They ran an attack piece on Neil degrasse Tyson. It was picked up by the rightwing blogosphere, but was totally non-newsworthy (as established by the lack of news coverage). Someone tried to insert it into Wikipedia's biographical page on Neil degrasse Tyson. That edit was promptly reverted because Wikipedia has a policy of being extremely cautious about adding negative material to the Biography of Living Persons. A blogosphere rant against someone doesn't qualify. So then TheFederalist.com writer started screaming CENSORSHIP and equating Wikipedia editors to religious fundamentalist terrorists for not writing his hit-job into Tyson's biography. *THIS* picked up some minor coverage for the story from other sources.

At this point someone noticed that we had an tiny article page on TheFederalist.com, and the only sourcing for that article was TheFederalist itself and a blog page from MediaMatters. The TheFederalist page was nominated for deletion. A massive effort was made by many people trying to find an sources talking about TheFederalist.com, searching for any sources we could use to fix the article. The search turned up squat. Then TheFederalist.com wrote about Wikipedia nominating their article for deletion, and *THAT* got picked up by a few sources. And *THOSE* stories gave us enough information about TheFederalist.com in order to write a an article on it.

So yeah..... it was painfully circular. ~~~~

-

Wikipedia editors aren't allowed to have opinions about a topic. The Neutral Point of View policy mandates that edits be deleted or re-written to present a reasonably neutral description of a topic. (And if needed, a neutral description of the sides in a controversial topic.)

Wikipedia editors aren't allowed to "know stuff" about a topic. The No Original Research policy mandates that facts and information must be Verifiable in published Reliable Sources. The sources need to exist, even if they aren't cited. Any information which is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, can be removed or tagged with {{citation needed}}.

Wikipedia editors aren't allowed to decide how "important" a topic is. This one causes the most confusion. Wikipedia's has a specific and somewhat unusual definition of Notability. Wikipedia Notability means that multiple independent Reliable Sources have published significant discussion of the subject. A musician who barely shows up at the #100 slot on a Billboard-top-100 list is Notable because The Wold has created the Billboard top-100 list to Take Note of musicians, and because a few paragraphs about the musician here and there in magazines give us Verifiable information from which to build an article. A Youtuber with more fans than the musician isn't Notable because (generally) books and magazines and the news don't publish any discussion of popular Youtubers. That means we have no independent sources from which to build an article.

So.... the reason this article was deleted rather than tagged "needs more verifiable sources" was that the number of independent usable sources was ZERO when it was nominated for deletion, and because everyone who participated in the deletion discussion did a search for more sources and came up with ZERO.

You can't built a valid Wikipedia article without verifiable sources, and you can't fix a broken article by adding sources to when the sources don't exist.

People can't write Wikipedia articles about themselves saying how awesome they are, or their company, or their pet project. (Well, they can write the article, but it will be deleted if it doesn't cite multiple independent published Reliable Sources discussing the subject).

It doesn't matter how awesome someone thinks their Python-LMDB project is. It doesn't matter how important someone thinks their Python-LMDB project is. If there's no magazines or books or news talking about it, then it's a dead-duck under Wikipedia Notability policy. We can't build an article based on just their own promotional materials, and editors can't just claim "personal knowledge" to make up stuff to write an article.

And no, this lame Slashdot story won't change that. ~~~~

-

voiced by 'muricans online it is very hard to tell.

Just a quick note: insulting people with differing opinions (no matter how right you may think you are) doesn't actually help you make your case, although it may increase your innate sense of superiority. In addition, those "'muricans" who might otherwise agree with you may just write you off as another bigoted foreign asshole who lumps everyone in a given country together.

We were ignoring seat belt puppet show long before the FAA loosened restrictions on gadgets. Besides, if there ever actually was an accident, the chances of needing any of that safety equipment is pretty negligible. I don't think the little oxygen mask is going to be any match for blunt force trauma. At normal airliner speeds, the little mask would be wearing you for protection.

You might want to check the moderation on the post you replied to, chuckle.

Your link is for a 30 year old watch with a touch screen that lets you enter numbers and symbols.
This story is a new invention watch with a touch screen that lets you enter numbers and symbols and letters.

That's why Microsoft deserves a patent on it.

-

What a dumb as shit policy. That's almost as bad as the days they wouldn't hire anyone who smoked pot. When you fix those kinds of absolutes you start selecting for a specific personality type that's not always going to make the best agent.

It's so backwards it defies logic.

“If crops grown on Mars are the only food source, they will ‘produce unsafe oxygen levels in the habitat’ resulting in the first crew fatality after about 68 days due to ‘suffocation from too low an oxygen partial pressure within the environment,’ the consequence of a complex series of events stemming from overproduction of oxygen by the plants.

It seems like an over-production of oxygen on a planet with an abundance of atmospheric CO2 would be a solvable problem. Hasn't this been faced by every grow experiment ever performed in space?

One of the criticisms of the astronauts in the mood landing program was that we quit just as we were getting good at it. Right now we're not even working at developing long-duration space missions. We're not going to solve the problems until we start putting experiments and people up there to start working the bugs out.

I think it's worrisome that my government thinks it should have the ability to get into every single aspect of my life with minimal obstruction because "someone", "somewhere", is doing something they shouldn't be. I am thinking of the children. I'm thinking that unless people stand up to this kind of shit "the children" are going to grow up in a world where they have absolutely no privacy and think it's perfectly acceptable for that to be the case.

Much like the Pontiac GTO. I had one and there were very few sold in the states. They only sold it for three years (I'm assuming they're talking about the 2004-2006 version and not the original GTO from 40+ years ago). Very few made and they are disappearing quickly. I spend a lot of time at a GTO message board and pictures of wrecked GTO's are regular fodder for discussion. Still, while there may be few left I bet the ones that are still out there are still being (mostly) driven by idiots who attract plenty of law enforcement attention.