Wikipedia and Inherent Open Source Bias

I tried adding my zombie game Dead By Zombie to Wikipedia in a list of, oh, zombie games, but it was deleted for not being notable. I thought that many of the games that were listed were, well, not notable and insignificant. I also dug around and learned that the person who single-handedly rejected my game was a teenager. From that experience and reading about other folks experiences I concluded that it was futile unless I wanted to game their system.

It's true that wikipedia is imperfect. One of the ways in which wikipedia is imperfect is inconsistent treatment of subjects whose notability is borderline. Luckily this doesn't impact too badly on the usability of the encyclopaedia for most people since the borderline-notable articles are the ones that are least read.<p>The article suggests that this should be fixed by making wikipedia easier to edit, allowing people who can't quite grok the complexities of the existing interface or difficult guidelines like "Verifiability" to make their own entries. I am extremely unconvinced that this would raise the overall quality of wikipedia.<p>Overall I think there are two schools of thought about wikipedia. I join the school of thought which thinks it's like a dog walking on its hind legs: instead of complaining that it's doesn't work perfectly we should be amazed that it's done at all. This guy seems to be in the school of thought that thinks the dog might walk a lot further if we gave it shoes.

I think the open source projects just have more people who would take notice and revert the vandalism of the filthy deletionists.

Wikipedia is rapidly becoming irrelevant - because of the deletionists. Looking on Wikipeidia is by definition looking for little-known or obscure facts. These are exactly what get deleted. It will soon be a shrine to the obvious.

I have to disagree with the author's premise. Just because the majority of Wikipedia editor's are male, this doesn't inherently mean the system will be biased.<p>The writer points out that many editors are not university educated like this means that their edits are of less worth than those with a degree. That's laughable.<p>To summarize: more FUD aimed at Wikipedia.