Talk:Antiwikipedic

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Added to votes for deletion. I don't see any useful content here or any possible use for this title.--LDC

Wikipedia is meant to be a repository for information. By definition, that means that wikipedia must be aware of its own existence and categories of information contained within.
So what?

Concepts that you make up have no place in an encyclopedia. Graft

I agree. Same with wikipedic. --mav


Please stop cluttering Wikipedia with links to these silly articles until you can convince us that they belong here. You are currently the only one who thinks they do, so you'll need to do a better job than you're doing now. I understand the motivation: at an earlier stage of the project we had an article "recursive" that said basically "see recursive". Humor is not entirely out of place here, but the primary namespace of the encyclopedia shouldn't be cluttered with jokes like this when there are much better and clearer ways to express the ideas. By admitting articles like this, we give the mistaken impression that the title itself is actually a serious topic, and not just a cute way to illustrate some real topic. --LDC


From the article:

Examples of wikipedic knowledge include Constans, George Pullman, and Transportation in French Polynesia.

Examples of antiwikipedic knowledge (as of the writing of this entry) include Sargon II, Trickster, and Polynesian.

These are not examples of knowledge, but of subjects. Or not even subjects, but subject titles. An example of wikipedic knowledge is "Constans was the youngest son of Constantine I the Great and Fausta." An example of Antiwikipedic knowledge (at the time of writing, one could argue it becomes Wikipedic when I hit the save button) is "Andre Engels is a member of the Koblenz go club" (taking an example from my own life so I don't run the risk that it is somewhere after all).