Howard Tayler over at Schlock Mercenary writes about how Wikipedia editors are using "notability" or the lack there-of to delete webcomic articles
they don't find worthy of their fine encyclopedic tradition. This personally touches a nerve, as I've seen articles that I read and updated deleted as spam (with claims that I'm being paid to post such articles), not notable (how great a catch-all is that?), or not up to Wikipedia standards (how about keeping the article around so it can be revised to reach that standard?). All in all, I'm becoming quite soured to the whole "open encyclopedia" idea as I watch valuable information being dumped by "editors" at wikipedia who are editing well outside their areas of knowledge, just to advance their ideas of what's worthy or not.
How's this for doublespeak, from Wikipedia's entry for itself
Wikipedia's philosophy is that unmoderated collaboration among well-meaning, informed editors will gradually improve the encyclopedia in its breadth, depth and accuracy, and that, given enough time, the truth will win out and even subtle errors will be caught and corrected.
Funny how there's nothing in that article about agendas, Article For Deletion discussions in which one side consistently ignores the other, and editing by uninformed editors. But not "funny, ha-ha!". More like "funny [Redacted - Not Notable]".