Amiga.org

Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: amoskodare on June 11, 2011, 08:02:39 PM

Title: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: amoskodare on June 11, 2011, 08:02:39 PM
Hi Amigans, I want to notify you that someone has nominated Natami on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natami) for deletion!

Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Natami) on the Articles for deletion page.

PS: Don't shoot, me, the messenger ;)
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: digiflip on June 11, 2011, 08:27:23 PM
and before Natami people blame me, i didn't vote for your deletion.


Maybe an E-petition would save Natami Wiki page from deletion?
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: XDelusion on June 11, 2011, 08:38:09 PM
That is gay. Natami has been showing progress
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: digiflip on June 11, 2011, 08:42:53 PM
Have setup support poll maybe enough people vote, might try get a proper e-petition setup?
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: koaftder on June 11, 2011, 08:49:54 PM
Natami isn't finished right? So that makes it one of billions of things that hasn't seen the light of day, how is that encyclopedic?
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: smerf on June 12, 2011, 04:01:43 PM
Quote from: amoskodare;644276
Hi Amigans, I want to notify you that someone has nominated Natami on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natami) for deletion!

Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Natami) on the Articles for deletion page.

PS: Don't shoot, me, the messenger ;)

Hi,

First, I didn't nominate Natami for deletion but as we say it rules are rules.

[Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)] Wiki delete rule

This looks more like an advertising story than an encyclopedia story. Then not only does it look like an advertising scheme, but the product does not yet exist. So if I wanted to I could go on Wiki and say that I am going to bring out a SUPER AMIGA and this is what it is all about, but in reality it is just a dream that I and Franko talked about. Does this seem logical, so far Natami has not showed anything but utubby specials. For all I know, as the mythbusters have proven several times, everything on utubby is not real, but faked stuff with MAC photoshop (another thing I hate about MAC, they lie about everything) and are a bunch of fakes, didn't see that in Amiga, no sir re. So once again it looks like an advertisement for a product that has not yet been developed, and so far as I can see, just like Amiga Inc. with all its delays vaporware.

smerf
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: smerf on June 12, 2011, 04:03:46 PM
Quote from: koaftder;644289
Natami isn't finished right? So that makes it one of billions of things that hasn't seen the light of day, how is that encyclopedic?


Hi,

@koaftder,

Thank you!

I agree with you totally

smerf
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: Franko on June 12, 2011, 04:17:47 PM
How the frig is Wicki an encyclopaedia !!! :confused:

Some pages may contain some facts but plenty of others seem to be nothing more then some anonymous numpties opinons.... :rolleyes:

Even stuff quoted from some big manufacturers contain BS that contradicts each other, talking about pages like where they can't even agree on how to calculate how big a Gigabyte or Terabyte is when it comes to HDs used on an Apple or a PC... :confused:

Wiki may be useful for some things but at the end of the day it's like 90% of stuff on the net ie: mostly opinions slanted in favour of the author... ;)

Anyone who thinks that half the crap they read on the net is the gospel truth and the ultimate answer to their questions needs to put against the wall and shot... :)
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: Duce on June 12, 2011, 05:34:33 PM
Nice to see any creative input on the issue was "moderated". GG.
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: JimS on June 12, 2011, 05:37:37 PM
I'm with Franko on this one... Wikipedia is fun, but it's hardly a source of Truth. While I'd accept it on trivial matters - anything the least bit controversial is likely to be complete Horse Squeeze.

Natami should stay. The prototypes have been seen by enough people to serve of proof of their existence. As for relevence, there are lots of things on there less relevent... Like the scads of pages regarding the fictional techonolgy and back story of the various sci fi shows. ;-)
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: amoskodare on June 12, 2011, 06:02:47 PM
If anyone knows a good 3rd-party reference then please post the link... :)
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: Franko on June 12, 2011, 06:55:36 PM
Quote from: JimS;644463
I'm with Franko on this one... Wikipedia is fun, but it's hardly a source of Truth. While I'd accept it on trivial matters - anything the least bit controversial is likely to be complete Horse Squeeze.

Natami should stay. The prototypes have been seen by enough people to serve of proof of their existence. As for relevence, there are lots of things on there less relevent... Like the scads of pages regarding the fictional techonolgy and back story of the various sci fi shows. ;-)


Never heard that term before but I like it... :D

(Something new to add my list of alternative meanings for crap... :))
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: JimS on June 12, 2011, 07:21:33 PM
Quote from: Franko;644471
Never heard that term before but I like it... :D

(Something new to add my list of alternative meanings for crap... :))


For variety, you can change the animal around to fit the conversation.... Dog Squeeze, Camel Squeeze, perhaps even Boing Squeeze for around here.... ;-)
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: desiv on June 12, 2011, 08:05:09 PM
Quote from: smerf;644444
,, but the product does not yet exist. So if I wanted to I could go on Wiki and say that I am going to bring out a SUPER AMIGA and this is what it is all about, but in reality it is just a dream that I and Franko talked about.
Except it does exist as a prototype.
There are boards and it is working, at least in some state..
So, while it doesn't exist as a buyable product, it does exist, which is many steps farther than your "dream" product...

I'm not saying it does or doesn't belong in WikiP, but it's not a dream...

desiv
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: Duce on June 12, 2011, 08:21:39 PM
Natami exists every bit as much as the X1000 and FPGAArcade, lol.  Don't see anyone screaming about the X1000's wiki entry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmigaOne_X1000
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: persia on June 12, 2011, 09:36:09 PM
Maybe I'll mark the A-Eon X1000 page for deletion.  Any project who's net goal is 250 machines is a personal project not worthy of a wiki page.  As I said in another post when I had a computer shop I turned out a few thousand PC with my own brand on them.  I'm not alone, I think virtually every corner computer shop that ever existed in Australia sold more than 250 units.  Should they all have a wiki page?

Heck one of my competitors Faranack produced a few thousand PCs in Sydney, ended up with a lot of angry customers, ran away to Lismore and sold another few thousand under a different brand name.  Now he deserves a wiki page!
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: desiv on June 12, 2011, 09:57:18 PM
Quote from: persia;644502
Heck one of my competitors Faranack produced a few thousand PCs in Sydney, ended up with a lot of angry customers, ran away to Lismore and sold another few thousand under a different brand name.  Now he deserves a wiki page!

Actually, that sounds like an interesting story.
I'd probably ready that, and I would think that that people who got ripped off might enjoy seeing the owners story there for all to read..

You should do that..

And as for all the small owners, why shouldn't that information be there.
It's not like Wikipedia has a limited number of entries it can have.
I can see someone saying "what was the name of that shop I bought the semi-custom PC from back in the 80'?"  
That also sounds like a good idea..

desiv
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: Lando on June 12, 2011, 10:13:50 PM
Quote from: JimS;644463
I'm with Franko on this one... Wikipedia is fun, but it's hardly a source of Truth.


Case in point:

"Hyperion Entertainment was founded in February 2009 after a Belgian lawyer called Benjamin Hermans wondered why no one had ever tried to license PC games to do Amiga ports."

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_Entertainment)

2009 ? Really?
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: Franko on June 12, 2011, 10:20:17 PM
Quote from: Lando;644516
Case in point:

"Hyperion Entertainment was founded in February 2009 after a Belgian lawyer called Benjamin Hermans wondered why no one had ever tried to license PC games to do Amiga ports."

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_Entertainment)

2009 ? Really?


WOW... when I bought OS4.0 back in 2006 (I think it was) from Hyperion Entertainment I must have imagined it, as we all know Wiki is the source of all facts & truthful knowledge... :lol:

Must have been using this when I bought it... :D
[youtube]76tiTXxjLdA[/youtube]
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: LordSpunky on June 12, 2011, 10:32:02 PM
I hate the Wiki police! They think nothing is real or worthy unless it has been in a newspaper or on TV! My very own fan (yup I have one, only one) write a Wiki article about my band a couple years back and they deleted it because I'd only sold 10 albums, 5 of them were turned into coasters. But that isn't the bloody point!
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: smerf on June 13, 2011, 01:22:44 AM
Quote from: desiv;644485
Except it does exist as a prototype.
There are boards and it is working, at least in some state..
So, while it doesn't exist as a buyable product, it does exist, which is many steps farther than your "dream" product...

I'm not saying it does or doesn't belong in WikiP, but it's not a dream...

desiv


Hi,

OK, prove it, how do you know that they are showing a working prototype, maybe it is just some old board that they have laying around that they are showing, the real working machine is the Amiga set up in back of the table (you know just like they said about the X1000). Oh they have a utubby on it, probably faked with photo shop.

I say it should go, it is a false advertisement of something not yet available.

smerf
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: Franko on June 13, 2011, 01:29:01 AM
Hi Smerf... :)

Weeeell... seing as were going down that road then how do we know that's a real pancake on that rabbits napper (could be faked with ImageFX)... :)

So I say it should go and bring back the cute wee Guinea Pig instead cos there's noooo way that was faked in fact I think it was actually a piccy of your goodself after a few too many Jack Daniels... :)

Cheers

Franko
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: desiv on June 13, 2011, 01:38:28 AM
Quote from: smerf;644558
OK, prove it

There are some things that can't be proved..
And some people who won't believe proof..

I choose to believe the vids.
I think they are proof.  You don't.

Oh well

Have a good one..

desiv
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: smerf on June 13, 2011, 03:36:05 AM
Quote from: Franko;644517
WOW... when I bought OS4.0 back in 2006 (I think it was) from Hyperion Entertainment I must have imagined it, as we all know Wiki is the source of all facts & truthful knowledge... :lol:

Must have been using this when I bought it... :D
[youtube]76tiTXxjLdA[/youtube]


Hi,

Been hitting the Meds a wee bit hard haven't we?

smerf
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: smerf on June 13, 2011, 03:38:17 AM
Quote from: desiv;644562
There are some things that can't be proved..
And some people who won't believe proof..

I choose to believe the vids.
I think they are proof.  You don't.

Oh well

Have a good one..

desiv


Hi,

I just love being a devils advocate.

smerf
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: CritAnime on June 13, 2011, 03:46:51 AM
I would agree with most that Wikipedia should not be seen as the fountain of knowledge that some people seem to hold it to. However the Natami article does seem to have some partially useful information on it. As apposed to something like this.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_USA
 
If the project goes belly up then the Wiki article maybe the only thing left to tell the tail that it even existsed. So why shouldn't it be left on?
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: Linde on June 13, 2011, 09:46:55 AM
Quote from: Franko;644447
How the frig is Wicki an encyclopaedia !!! :confused:

Some pages may contain some facts but plenty of others seem to be nothing more then some anonymous numpties opinons.... :rolleyes:

... and I suppose keeping low-quality articles about non-existant hardware that can't cite any reputable sources will help in this regard. Right? I'm not trying to deride Natami here, but there simply isn't much that can be said about it in terms of matters of fact.

Quote from: Franko;644447
Even stuff quoted from some big manufacturers contain BS that contradicts each other, talking about pages like where they can't even agree on how to calculate how big a Gigabyte or Terabyte is when it comes to HDs used on an Apple or a PC... :confused:

That's because different computer systems calculate drive/RAM sizes differently. It has nothing to do with the quality of wikipedia, and I can't really see why you would think otherwise. This matter is detailed in the "gigabyte" article, a well-cited and informative article on the subject. On wikipedia.

Quote from: Franko;644447
Wiki may be useful for some things but at the end of the day it's like 90% of stuff on the net ie: mostly opinions slanted in favour of the author... ;)

Unlike most places on the web, though, you are expected to cite sources when making claims of fact. When people don't, you can edit the articles yourself. I find myself adding [citation needed] to stuff every day, and even that passive kind of editing style actually helps improving the quality of the site.

Quote from: Franko;644447
Anyone who thinks that half the crap they read on the net is the gospel truth and the ultimate answer to their questions needs to put against the wall and shot... :)

I agree, but you should know that wikipedia doesn't simply make itself. It is the responsibility of its users. As with anything, even outside the web (believe it or not :)), if you want the facts straight, there's an effort involved, and you have to critically analyze any information which you might come to rely on. I have often found that the quality of wikipedia surpasses other media, printed, broadcasted, anything... Any fact dispute is open to the public, and if you find anything dubious, you can make the changes yourself or open a dispute, and you'll often find that others have done so already.

Short story: Wikipedia is not a replacement for critical thinking and research, but it is often half-way there, which is a lot further than most printed encyclopedias.
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: Linde on June 13, 2011, 10:00:36 AM
Quote from: CritAnime;644612
However the Natami article does seem to have some partially useful information on it.  
Whether useful or not, if there's little to nothing to support the factuality of the information, it has no place in an encyclopedia. I can't believe this attitude. It's not a scrap book for whatever useful information you can think of, unless you can find multiple sources to support the factuality and notability of it.

Quote from: CritAnime;644612
As apposed to something like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_USA
- It cites independent sources.
- Even so, its notability is (understandably) disputed, which is mentioned at the top of the article for all to see to be able to make their own decisions.
I think that it's a good example of why wikipedia is such a great concept.
 
Quote from: CritAnime;644612
If the project goes belly up then the Wiki article maybe the only thing left to tell the tail that it even existsed. So why shouldn't it be left on?
Then you'll just have to find another site to use as an archeological resource. Wikipedia, primarily, is NOT.

What I really don't understand is that whenever group X or subculture Y has their favorite article on obscure subject Z, relevant only to them deleted, they automatically see it as a personal insult. Are people really so far up in themselves that they can't assume a somewhat objective stance on these things?

BTW, I noticed that some of you complained about the Hyperion article, but none of you bothered to make the change. You are complaining about something that so obviously is a community effort (where everyone's invited) without lifting a finger to fix even a simple typo yourselves.
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: gertsy on June 13, 2011, 10:45:34 AM
There must be 100s of millions of articles in Wikipedia.  How can you mark something for deletion based on lack of notoriety when that's what Wikipedia does.  Double edged sword that one.
Title: Re: Natami on Wikipedia nominated for Deletion
Post by: Linde on June 13, 2011, 11:18:19 AM
Quote from: gertsy;644688
There must be 100s of millions of articles in Wikipedia.  How can you mark something for deletion based on lack of notoriety when that's what Wikipedia does.  Double edged sword that one.

If you think that an article isn't notable enough, go ahead and mark it as such. You are free to contest (or, boldly, just remove) any information that might seem redundant or irrelevant. I have done so (successfully) many times. You should read the notability guideline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline), which lists many cases under which both the CUSA and Natami articles fall.

I don't understand the likening to a double edged sword in this case. I can only see it as the result of a biased and unfounded us-against-them mentality, combined with a complete ignorance to how wikipedia works and even what it is supposed to be.