Hey there.
I'm a frequent editor of Wikipedia and for the most part I involve myself with Star Trek related articles. I was involved in the various deletes of the Expansion Fleet article and if you'll allow me, I'd like to explain why. Note however that I have no authority to speak for Wikipedia, and only offer my interpretation as a supporter of the project.
Firstly, Wikipedia does not have unlimited server space. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep online, a price which I'm sure you know, goes up with the amount of content. Because of this, some editors (of which I wouldn't count myself amongst) agree with a stricter policy on including articles i.e. only truly notable subjects get articles. This is the same sort of policy that is run for every encyclopaedia and is made all the more important because of the Internet where there are millions of unnotable blogs, websites and groups. Of course what constitues a "truly" notable article is up for debate, and there are a number of editors who believe the project should include articles about practically everything (this includes bridges, back roads, blogs, all books etc.). Because of these conflicting views, something of a consensus has been reached in the middle. You can view these guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability" target="_blank">here as well as on the related pages.
As you can see, websites, blogs and groups are "generally not notable." Because of this (a point almost universally agreed upon throughout Wikipedia), web-based groups such as EF must demonstrate in their article how the group is noteworthy enough for inclusion. Sadly, EF's article cannot do this, because by Wikipedia's standards (and whether you agree with them or not, they are what count here), the group is not notable enough for inclusion.
This isn't a slur on EF nor does it reflect a bias against RPGs or Star Trek. Nor is it feminism, communism or Nazi-like behaviour as someone suggested on your petition. It is a neccesity. I am sure that if Wikipedia had free, unlimited server space then articles would be encouraged for every subject imaginable, including EF but at the moment there has to be a line and for now your group falls below that line.
I reiterate, this is not a slur against EF. The group has only been going for five years - to expect great notability in so short a time is optimistic. As was pointed out on Wikipedia, Tango Fleet, USS Miranda and Federation Simm Fleet have been going for at least nine years, and do not have articles of their own. An article for the popular Section 47 was recently deleted.
Some have put forth the existence of Bravo Fleet's article as justification for including EF. But Bravo Fleet has thousands of members, hundreds of related websites, has been featured in externally created reference works and its founder has appeared on web radio alongside stars of the show. It will also have been going for over nine years by the end of 2006. And even with all this, the Bravo Fleet article has faced numerous problems with biased edits and advertising by the group's creator, and was itself nominated for deletion late last year. If you'll check the deletion vote, you'll see that just under half of the counted voters found Bravo Fleet to be non-notable to the degree where it didn't warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. The article does not still exist because of a large number of keep votes but because a consensus of long-time editors was not reached.
In light of this, it is perhaps not the strongest argument to put forth for including EF.
Finally, I run a small Star Trek simm myself. It has less than ten members and has been going for less than a year. I'm very happy with it so far and aren't particularly worried about recruiting more members. I would consider it to be an excellent simm. I wouldn't however, expect an article on Wikipedia about it because it is not very notable.
My point is this. Though Expansion Fleet may not be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, that does not make it a bad group, or indicate that those who voted for its deletion hold a negative opinion of it. Notability does not equal high quality - just look at Ikea.
The behaviour of EF members both on Wikipedia and through your announcements here culminating in your petition, is understandable to a degree, but ultimately saddening and damaging to the group's image from the exterior; a likely unfair situation regarding a group which I have no doubt has a lot of positives going for it.
A previous revision of the EF article stated that some years ago, the decision was made to mould this group into the shape of something akin to Bravo Fleet. By that I assume you intended to grow into a large, successful and notable organisation. But look at BF's article. It's highly critical of the group and discusses events in its history that the group leaders would rather sweep under the carpet. Just as in life where there are more important things than fame, in the case of RPG groups, there are much more important things than notability. The fact that Bravo Fleet has an article where Expansion Fleet may soon not, does not mean that Bravo Fleet is better than Expansion Fleet, but perhaps shows that Bravo Fleet has earned notoriety via negative actions. I am sure this is not what you intend for Expansion Fleet.
Regards,
Chris
I'm a frequent editor of Wikipedia and for the most part I involve myself with Star Trek related articles. I was involved in the various deletes of the Expansion Fleet article and if you'll allow me, I'd like to explain why. Note however that I have no authority to speak for Wikipedia, and only offer my interpretation as a supporter of the project.
Firstly, Wikipedia does not have unlimited server space. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep online, a price which I'm sure you know, goes up with the amount of content. Because of this, some editors (of which I wouldn't count myself amongst) agree with a stricter policy on including articles i.e. only truly notable subjects get articles. This is the same sort of policy that is run for every encyclopaedia and is made all the more important because of the Internet where there are millions of unnotable blogs, websites and groups. Of course what constitues a "truly" notable article is up for debate, and there are a number of editors who believe the project should include articles about practically everything (this includes bridges, back roads, blogs, all books etc.). Because of these conflicting views, something of a consensus has been reached in the middle. You can view these guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability" target="_blank">here as well as on the related pages.
As you can see, websites, blogs and groups are "generally not notable." Because of this (a point almost universally agreed upon throughout Wikipedia), web-based groups such as EF must demonstrate in their article how the group is noteworthy enough for inclusion. Sadly, EF's article cannot do this, because by Wikipedia's standards (and whether you agree with them or not, they are what count here), the group is not notable enough for inclusion.
This isn't a slur on EF nor does it reflect a bias against RPGs or Star Trek. Nor is it feminism, communism or Nazi-like behaviour as someone suggested on your petition. It is a neccesity. I am sure that if Wikipedia had free, unlimited server space then articles would be encouraged for every subject imaginable, including EF but at the moment there has to be a line and for now your group falls below that line.
I reiterate, this is not a slur against EF. The group has only been going for five years - to expect great notability in so short a time is optimistic. As was pointed out on Wikipedia, Tango Fleet, USS Miranda and Federation Simm Fleet have been going for at least nine years, and do not have articles of their own. An article for the popular Section 47 was recently deleted.
Some have put forth the existence of Bravo Fleet's article as justification for including EF. But Bravo Fleet has thousands of members, hundreds of related websites, has been featured in externally created reference works and its founder has appeared on web radio alongside stars of the show. It will also have been going for over nine years by the end of 2006. And even with all this, the Bravo Fleet article has faced numerous problems with biased edits and advertising by the group's creator, and was itself nominated for deletion late last year. If you'll check the deletion vote, you'll see that just under half of the counted voters found Bravo Fleet to be non-notable to the degree where it didn't warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. The article does not still exist because of a large number of keep votes but because a consensus of long-time editors was not reached.
In light of this, it is perhaps not the strongest argument to put forth for including EF.
Finally, I run a small Star Trek simm myself. It has less than ten members and has been going for less than a year. I'm very happy with it so far and aren't particularly worried about recruiting more members. I would consider it to be an excellent simm. I wouldn't however, expect an article on Wikipedia about it because it is not very notable.
My point is this. Though Expansion Fleet may not be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, that does not make it a bad group, or indicate that those who voted for its deletion hold a negative opinion of it. Notability does not equal high quality - just look at Ikea.
The behaviour of EF members both on Wikipedia and through your announcements here culminating in your petition, is understandable to a degree, but ultimately saddening and damaging to the group's image from the exterior; a likely unfair situation regarding a group which I have no doubt has a lot of positives going for it.
A previous revision of the EF article stated that some years ago, the decision was made to mould this group into the shape of something akin to Bravo Fleet. By that I assume you intended to grow into a large, successful and notable organisation. But look at BF's article. It's highly critical of the group and discusses events in its history that the group leaders would rather sweep under the carpet. Just as in life where there are more important things than fame, in the case of RPG groups, there are much more important things than notability. The fact that Bravo Fleet has an article where Expansion Fleet may soon not, does not mean that Bravo Fleet is better than Expansion Fleet, but perhaps shows that Bravo Fleet has earned notoriety via negative actions. I am sure this is not what you intend for Expansion Fleet.
Regards,
Chris