[HN Gopher] In Defense of Inclusionism (2009-18)
___________________________________________________________________
In Defense of Inclusionism (2009-18)
Author : luu
Score : 71 points
Date : 2020-05-05 10:07 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.gwern.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.gwern.net)
| andrewla wrote:
| As an inclusionist who has basically given up on editing
| wikipedia because of deletionist forces, I read this article and
| see nothing but points I agree with.
|
| What I would like to see, however, is a good defense of
| deletionism. I have a lot of trouble even understanding the point
| of view.
|
| If there's some higher-level motivation about storage costs or
| something, then I can buy it, but I don't think anyone is making
| that argument. Does it hurt wikipedia to have low-quality
| articles? I think only insofar as the articles are about subjects
| that are important, so the effect seems to be self-balancing. Can
| wikipedia be used by people to glorify themselves with personal
| wikipedia pages? Sure, but who cares -- unless someone does care
| in a particular instance (i.e. a person named Albert Einstein
| tries to take over the main article -- people will fight it
| because they want the article to point to the right person).
| scott_s wrote:
| I see two problems. One, as the qualifications loosen,
| Wikipedia will tend to have not just more articles, but more
| lesser quality articles. At a certain point, Wikipedia would
| become _mostly_ poor quality.
|
| Two, _managing_ the articles has a cost for the editors
| involved. As the number of articles increases, their ability to
| do a good job will decrease.
| umanwizard wrote:
| > Does it hurt wikipedia to have low-quality articles? I think
| only insofar as the articles are about subjects that are
| important, so the effect seems to be self-balancing.
|
| Here is where I disagree. I think Wikipedia is hurt by _any_
| low-quality articles. If I see some information on Wikipedia,
| there is a moderate positive signal that that information is
| correct. (Not as strong as a signal as I 'd like, but oh well).
| Reducing the strength of that signal would make Wikipedia less
| useful.
| astine wrote:
| I think that the main argument that isn't simply a matter of
| storage costs (which probably does kick in at some point) is
| simply a matter of brand-management. If the average Wikipedia
| article is a discussion an incomplete and poorly sourced
| article about Pokemon then Wikipedia gets a reputation as poor
| source of information. It actually had the reputation pretty
| strongly early on, but it's reputation for reliabity has
| actually improved over the years.
|
| I suppose that there is also the inverse problem where poor
| articles can use Wikipedia's relatively good reputation to give
| visibility to some pseudoscience or conspiracy theory. If it's
| really obscure, the only people who will be writing articles
| about are will be proponents who will then link to the article
| from their closed Facebook groups. It won't necessarily be
| obvious to non-experts what's going on so deleting certain
| kinds of articles could be a protection against that as well.
|
| (I'm not any kind of Wikipedian btw; just speculating off of
| the top of my head.)
| domador wrote:
| If that's the case, I'd prefer a two-tiered Wikipedia over a
| deletionist Wikipedia. In such a Wikipedia, each page could
| be clearly-labeled as either an encyclopedia-quality entry or
| as a "wannabe" encyclopedia entry. (A better term would be
| needed for the lower tier.) Such labeling should be very
| noticeable and visible when you open an entry, at least for
| the lower-tier entries.
| astine wrote:
| They used to use the term "Stub" for brief pages that
| weren't full articles yet and they do put warnings on
| articles that don't meet certain quality standards, though
| I think that's different that what you're talking about
| here.
| domador wrote:
| There's some overlap, though not full equivalency. Stubs
| presumably fall in line with Wikipedia's editorial
| vision, even if they haven't been fleshed out into full
| entries. The entries I'm referring to are mostly ones
| which would run afoul of Wikipedia's notability
| criterion.
|
| Going back to the brand management issue, I'd be OK with
| deleted articles and their history being moved to another
| wiki with a different URL, with a name that is not
| "Wikipedia". Cookies or some other mechanism could be
| used to manage user/session preferences so that users who
| want to to be redirected to this other, questionable-page
| wiki can be redirected when they try to access pages that
| don't fall in line with Wikipedia's editorial vision. I'd
| be fine with having huge in-your face warnings about the
| likely lack of quality or veracity of such entries...
| just as long as I can access that content.
| Permit wrote:
| As a purely end-user of Wikipedia I just want to chip in only to
| say that I have not seen any observable decline in Wikipedia over
| the last 15 years. I am generally very happy with the results I
| get when I use it.
|
| > The fundamental cause of the decline is the English Wikipedia's
| increasingly narrow attitude as to what are acceptable topics and
| to what depth those topics can be explored, combined with a
| narrowed attitude as to what are acceptable sources, where
| academic & media coverage trumps any consideration of other
| factors.
|
| I guess it sucks for people who wanted to write articles on each
| chapter of Atlas Shrugged or thought Bulbasaur needed his own
| page. Presumably, though, you agree there should be SOME criteria
| for what is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article? For
| example, in order of increasing mundanity these topics probably
| don't deserve a Wikipedia article: Me, my cat, my cat's water
| bowl, the water in the bowl on May 5, 2020 etc.
|
| Like, there must be some line that separates what deserves an
| article and what is does not. We can argue about where to draw
| that line but I'm actually pretty happy with how Wikipedia has
| done it.
| andrewla wrote:
| > these topics probably don't deserve a Wikipedia article: Me,
| my cat, my cat's water bowl, the water in the bowl on May 5,
| 2020 etc.
|
| Yes, they probably don't. But what is the cost of having them?
| If they confuse an issue, like if your cat shares a name with a
| more notable animal, then yours can just be renamed to
| "Fluffers (Permit's cat)". Who does it hurt to have that page
| on there, even in the reductio ad absurdum? Even,
| hypothetically, storage costs -- in the current deletionist
| world, the initial article and its deletion will be preserved
| in history forever, so we don't save anything.
|
| If we need to provide the capability to flag pages as
| "deletionists don't like this" and present a deletionist view
| of wikipedia to those who don't wish to be exposed to that
| content, then go for it.
|
| I don't mean to try to throw rhetorical exclamation points
| everywhere; I'm genuinely curious about the cost of having a
| page about your cat's water bowl.
| scott_s wrote:
| > But what is the cost of having them?
|
| The time and effort of the Wikipedia editors; the reputation
| of Wikipedia in general.
| _jal wrote:
| > I'm genuinely curious about the cost of having a page about
| your cat's water bowl.
|
| Several billion cat-water bowl pages are probably just an
| annoyance for someone.
|
| But what would you think of a page explaining, say, all the
| healthy virtues of drinking diluted bleach for fighting C19
| being hosted on wikipedia.org?
|
| How do you think that's going to work out, in the first
| instance, when panicking people read it, and in the second,
| when people start treating wikipedia.org as trustworthy as
| their spam folder?
| Barrin92 wrote:
| > I'm genuinely curious about the cost of having a page about
| your cat's water bowl.
|
| The fact that it's at some point impossible to disambiguate
| information. If you have 50.000 pages of everyone's cat it'd
| be borderline impossible to find general information that is
| relevant to a public audience. It's the same reason I can't
| go to the public library and put random writings of me on a
| shelf, there needs to be a level of curation so that the
| content isn't being bogged down by what is mostly going to be
| noise.
|
| The article brings up a page for each pokemon say, and if you
| have countless of pokemon all with similar names to other
| real-world stuff everyone who doesn't care about the pokemon
| will have to wade through links and pages of irrelevant
| content, it'd quickly turn into a huge digital garbage dump.
|
| Also not to mention that Wikipedia wants to provide a
| reasonable level of accuracy and factfulness, and nobody can
| independently verify personal content or topics so niche that
| only one person knows what's going on.
|
| I don't know why someone really would want wikipedia to turn
| into a website for in-universe fiction or people's personal
| content. That stuff is more suited for a self-hosted wiki.
| yorwba wrote:
| > If we need to provide the capability to flag pages as
| "deletionists don't like this" and present a deletionist view
| of wikipedia to those who don't wish to be exposed to that
| content, then go for it.
|
| That flag exists. It's set by deleting the article. As you
| note:
|
| > in the current deletionist world, the initial article and
| its deletion will be preserved in history forever
|
| So if someone wanted to present an inclusionist view of
| Wikipedia to those who find that content valuable, they could
| do so.
| dooglius wrote:
| No, you can't edit pages that have been deleted, so that's
| more than a flag.
| a1369209993 wrote:
| In the reductio ad absurdum, storage costs do become a
| problem, and deletionism discourages many useless pages from
| being created in the first place. OTOH, deletionism
| discourages many useful pages from being created in the first
| place, which is a much more serious problem.
| Permit wrote:
| > Yes, they probably don't. But what is the cost of having
| them?
|
| I like the idea that the articles on Wikipedia are generally
| on "notable" topics or people. When I am reading an article I
| know that it has probably been eyed up and down by
| deletionists, hunting for any excuse to delete it, but they
| walked away unable to do so. That's a very useful signal to
| me!
|
| For example, right now I can look someone up and use "has a
| Wikipedia page" as a rough proxy for "is well known". If
| everyone had Wikipedia pages, I could no longer do this.
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| As gp says, though, a deletionist flag and deletionist
| viewport would accomplish that just as well, while
| preserving more obscure and niche topics.
| teraflop wrote:
| Wikipedians have been arguing over these positions for many
| years, so if you want to see the arguments in favor of
| deletionism, there are plenty of places to look.
|
| For example, here are IMO the most salient points from
| https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism:
|
| > Some believe that the presence of uninformative articles
| damage the project's usefulness and credibility, particularly
| when casual visitors encounter them through Internet search
| engines or Wikipedia's "random page" or "recent changes."
|
| > Articles on obscure topics, even if they are in principle
| verifiable, tend to be very difficult to verify. Usually, the
| more obscure, the harder to verify. Actually verifying such
| articles, or sorting out verifiable facts from exaggeration
| and fiction, takes a great deal of time. Not verifying them
| opens the door to fiction and advertising. This also leads to
| a de facto collapse of the "no original research policy",
| which is one of the fundamental Wikipedia policies.
| Empirically, there have been a number of hoax articles which
| were difficult to prove to be hoaxes but which could have
| easily been deleted by a sufficiently strict notability
| policy.
|
| > Poorly-sourced articles can result in Citogenesis, as
| incorrect or unsourced information on Wiki (e.g., information
| that is the product of original research) is then repeated
| outside Wiki and eventually works its way into a publication
| that is normally regarded as a reliable source.
| fnl wrote:
| Isn't what you are describing exactly the Internet plus a
| search engine you trust will pick up the article type you are
| interested in? In fact, you'd still need to trust that open
| WPv2 thing just like that search engine.
| ardy42 wrote:
| >> these topics probably don't deserve a Wikipedia article:
| Me, my cat, my cat's water bowl, the water in the bowl on May
| 5, 2020 etc.
|
| > But what is the cost of having them?
|
| 0. Volunteer time may be cheap, but it's not infinite.
| Without standards, the volume of articles could become so
| large it will be an impossible task to fact check and edit
| them all.
|
| 1. Malicious, unscrupulous, or misguided actors co-opting
| Wikipedia's reputation for their own purposes (e.g. Jack's
| snake oil has been scientifically proven to cure all
| disease).
|
| 2. Useless garbage in search results that you have to wade
| through. If I put up a page about my vanity music act,
| literally no one will want to read about it but me, yet it
| will still show up in your search results.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| It's worth noting that the Bulbasaur fans won and he does have
| his own page.
| Permit wrote:
| That's great! And I think it shows that no matter where you
| draw the line you're going to end up with compelling topics
| on either side of it. I see it as a strength of Wikipedia
| that these things are fluid and there is an ongoing tension
| between inclusionists and deletionists. I'm very happy where
| they've ended up at the moment.
| musicale wrote:
| > I guess it sucks for people who wanted to write articles on
| each chapter of Atlas Shrugged or thought Bulbasaur needed his
| own page
|
| Bulbasaur is a pop culture icon; he may very well be the second
| most recognizable Pokemon after Pikachu (though as noted
| Charmander and Squirtle are up there too.) In any case, he
| definitely earned his own page:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulbasaur
| nitwit005 wrote:
| I'm in essentially the same camp. When I've tried to look
| things up, it's always already been there. I've made edits to
| wikipedia, but it's always been undoing vandalism.
| duskwuff wrote:
| > Like, there must be some line that separates what deserves an
| article and what is does not.
|
| That line is simply:
|
| > If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable
| sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to
| be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
|
| -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
|
| This _instantly_ weeds out a lot of obviously trivial topics.
| There 's arguments about how exactly "significant coverage",
| "reliable sources" and "independent of the subject" should be
| defined, and refinements of this policy for specific subject
| areas, but that's the core of Wikipedia's notability policies.
| I've never heard any solid arguments for including a topic
| which doesn't meet this criterion.
| markwkw wrote:
| Is it easy to tell what technology gwern uses for his website?
| I'm not web-savvy, but it looks html looks like it's not
| generated, but hand crafted. Is is a static website?
| juped wrote:
| You can find this information on the site
| astine wrote:
| As Juped said, there is actually an in depth discussion of the
| tool used to generate the website on the about page:
| https://www.gwern.net/About#tools It looks like static
| generated website is about correct.
| miblon wrote:
| I noticed the decline. About a year ago, during a hackathon, we
| tried to get an article online. It took us 3 deletes and retries.
| Then I reached out to a national official at Wikipedia and
| finally the article got accepted. That's not good...
| eitland wrote:
| Same goes for stackoverflow.
|
| Since the stackoverflow database is freely available I cannot see
| a single good reason why they haven't been outcompeted years ago.
| the_af wrote:
| So I have my own beefs with stackoverflow and the stackexchange
| network at large, but...
|
| ...at some point you have to ask yourself, _why_ haven 't they
| been outcompeted? For every post complaining about
| stackoverflow moderation or policies, there are probably
| thousands of people using it every day to do their jobs, and
| _it hasn 't been outcompeted_!
|
| So if we're honest, we cannot rule out the possibility they are
| doing something right. They set out to replace closed sites
| like "Expert Sex Change" -- ok, sorry for the joke,
| expertsexchange -- and also reduce low quality noise. They
| succeeded and they are now the gold standard. So why hasn't
| anyone simply taken their data and forked it?
|
| A great example: softwareengineering.stackexchange -- formerly
| programmers.stackexchange -- has a troubled history. At times
| it has decided _everything_ was off-topic there (I 'm not
| joking, there were times where every question on the home page
| was closed as off-topic), and some long time "inclusionist" and
| well-intentioned contributors declared they would fork it, and
| their fork would include everything even tangentially related
| to programmers and people wouldn't be censored for asking
| questions about anything.
|
| Where are those forks now?
| Animats wrote:
| Most of the important topics were covered years ago.
| Encyclopedias are not high-maintenance; the maintenance team for
| Britannica wasn't all that big.
|
| I used to edit Wikipedia quite a bit, but got into other things.
| narag wrote:
| No comments yet? I guess others are still reading TFA...
|
| There are a number of issues that seem to be eternal. Even if
| there's an obvious right answer, I see year after year, decade
| after decade that they keep being discussed, with the same points
| being made over and over again. Is there a name for these?
|
| I guess that for each of them, there is some kind of unspeakable
| reason that trumps any sound rationale.
| CarVac wrote:
| I would attribute it to an inadequate equilibrium, a local
| minimum that's simply too hard to escape at this point.
| pdonis wrote:
| _> I guess that for each of them, there is some kind of
| unspeakable reason that trumps any sound rationale._
|
| I think the general unspeakable reason is pretty simple: once
| you give people power, some of them will misuse it. And since
| it takes more effort to correct a misuse of power than to
| commit the misuse in the first place, any institution that
| gives people power becomes more and more corrupt over time as
| misuses of power outweigh valid uses of power.
| ghaff wrote:
| While I'm mostly in Camp Inclusion, I appreciate the issues
| that tend to come up as you loosen criteria for articles more
| and more--you probably inevitably get articles that are
| "notable" to a narrower and narrower set of people and a lot
| of verification depends on shakier and harder to access
| sources.
|
| That said, it's pretty clear that there are more than a few
| Wikipedia admins who seem to have embraced deletionism for
| topics that aren't near and dear to them personally and/or
| which poke at whatever their particular political hot buttons
| are.
| kragen wrote:
| The nice thing about Wikis in general is that it's usually
| easier to correct a misuse of the power to edit a page than
| it is to commit the misuse in the first place. That's why
| Wikis work at all.
| narag wrote:
| That works for the power to edit, not for the power to
| delete. So it makes sense, yes.
| ooobit2 wrote:
| Not just _some_ people, _nearly all_ will abuse it. But we
| 've seen this more-so in people who are less familiar with
| these institutions. Baltimore, MD, for example, has had now
| _two_ black, female mayors convicted of corruption and
| removed from office. We 've seen the current mayor of Chicago
| attempt authoritarianism to enforce the stay-at-home order.
| Michigan's mayor has reached far beyond CDC and NHS
| recommendations, and now faces possible corruption charges
| over abuse of power. Maine's governor is also in the
| spotlight for circumventing checks and balances by the
| legislature on the executive office.
|
| People love AOC, and I too believe she means well, but even
| she has warped into an anarcho-syndicalist, going so far as
| to make absurd statements that "incremental change isn't
| working", when everyone knows governance is a complex,
| incremental series of processes, necessary to maintain a free
| republic and limit opportunities for tyranny. Omar has had a
| sexual affair with a senior member of her staff. Tlaib has
| been censured for collaborating with anti-semitic
| organizations on official business.
|
| Biden, himself, has now managed over a year of avoiding
| investigations into how his son secured a chair on a
| Ukrainian energy board and was on that board during
| negotiations between the Obama-Biden administration and
| Ukraine related to that company's finances.
|
| It's cute that people like John Oliver continue to say that
| the rise of fascism isn't obvious, that it happens slow,
| subtle. But abuses of power and position are everywhere right
| now, especially among anti-Trump activists in the media and
| Congress. You might agree that Trump is a racist, but taking
| that very position is complicit with the anarcho-syndicalism
| among a growing number of leftist politicians now.
|
| Keep an air of skepticism about you for your own safety. Just
| because 75% of us think a hate speech law is a reasonable
| circumvention of free speech guarantees doesn't mean we
| aren't also enabling scope creep. As we've seen thus far,
| "slippery slope" is a fallacy in everything _but_ governance.
| lidHanteyk wrote:
| As a former Wikipedian, what's there to say? The evidence is
| still there, and was there for years and years. Deletionism
| was, and remains, a wrong-headed attitude that does not
| understand what makes WP qualitatively different from standard
| encyclopedic offerings.
|
| There is not a motivating need to limit WP's scope, and indeed
| that is why WMF forked off projects like Wiktionary and
| Wikidata to their own TLDs. The main problem with WP is that it
| is far easier to be wrong than to be right, and the effort
| required to be right is linear in the number of words written.
| In short, the number of editors per page required for
| acceptable quality does not roll off with large numbers of
| pages, but stays relatively high, at around 1-2 editors/page.
|
| Worse, the number of moderators per editor does not roll off
| either. The number of bureaucrats required therefore keeps
| growing, logarithmically but steadily, and the demands on
| arbitration committees keep growing. The committees themselves
| have long ago failed basic principles of legal legibility,
| leading to sprawling bureaucracy.
|
| One possible solution is to fundamentally alter what we store.
| Rather than writing thousands of words of prose, we could use
| Wikidata to automatically generate articles. We already have
| factboxes which could be largely automatically populated, and
| many people only care about the factboxes. Prose would be
| limited to commentary and explication, but would not be the
| main bodies of articles. This is not just a pipe dream; LMFDB
| [0] exists and is worth examining as an example of how code and
| data can automatically generate the bulk of an encyclopedia.
|
| But, let's be honest, the writing was on the wall when
| Esperanza [1] was dissolved. We are now somewhere between
| Bureaucracy and The Aftermath.
|
| [0] https://www.lmfdb.org/
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Esperanza
| zozbot234 wrote:
| > One possible solution is to fundamentally alter what we
| store. Rather than writing thousands of words of prose, we
| could use Wikidata to automatically generate articles.
|
| This is in fact being proposed at https://meta.wikimedia.org/
| wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#Proposal_tow... by a prominent
| Wikidatan. (Edit: follow up at
| https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilambda and
| https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikilambda .) However
| generating sensible articles would require expanding the
| current Wikidata model, and this is something that should
| happen gradually and be managed by the WD community itself,
| not at a separate project. The whole pretty-printing-in-
| natural-language part is the most speculative by far, and
| incubating it separately makes more sense.
|
| It's worth noting that Wikidata itself is not "deletionist"
| other than as implied by verifiability- and sourcing-
| requirements. Its model is far more general and far more
| "inclusionist" than even the most permissive visions for
| Wikipedia.
| narag wrote:
| Wow, the death of hope...
| duskwuff wrote:
| > There is not a motivating need to limit WP's scope, and
| indeed that is why WMF forked off projects like Wiktionary
| and Wikidata to their own TLDs.
|
| This feels like a gross misreading of the facts.
|
| Wiktionary is separate from Wikipedia because its work
| product is fundamentally different -- it's a dictionary, not
| an encylopedia. Wikipedia has a lot of articles about things
| that aren't words, and Wiktionary has a lot of pages for
| words that wouldn't make sense to write an encyclopedia
| article about.
|
| Wikidata, meanwhile, is _only_ about raw data. Which is a
| part of an encyclopedia, but far from all of it. (How would
| you write an article about the history of Rome using only
| data?)
|
| > But, let's be honest, the writing was on the wall when
| Esperanza [1] was dissolved.
|
| This, too, is a gross misstatement of the facts.
|
| Esperanza was dissolved because it was becoming a cabal. It
| was becoming its own organization, with its own decision-
| making process and elected officials, a significant part of
| which happened off-wiki. There was widespread agreement,
| _even from Esperanza 's founder_, that the organization was
| no longer fulfilling its purpose, and an effort to reform it
| before it was shut down.
|
| There's a decent summary at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi
| kipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
| som33 wrote:
| > I see year after year, decade after decade that they keep
| being discussed, with the same points being made over and over
| again. Is there a name for these?
|
| Because human beings don't see reality accurately, see the
| science:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ
| netcan wrote:
| This sort of problem (or its opposite) is inevitable with our
| internet circa 2020.
|
| Maybe wikipedia _is_ too narrow. Maybe it 's too broad. These
| things don't have singular, indisputable answers...
|
| The problem is that we have an internet of bottlenecks. Wikipedia
| choices about what is encyclopedic or notable is the only
| definition of encyclopedic that matters. Youtube's interpretation
| of fair use, twitter's definition of offensive or facebook's
| definition of obscene... they're the working definitions.
|
| The internet needs to be less centralised... Even wikipedia.
| severine wrote:
| Does anyone here remember Seth Finkelstein?
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/jul/31/wikipedia
|
| I miss his writing!
|
| edit: His blog is still up:
| http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/cat_wikipedia.htm...
| but unfortunately, no new entries since 2013 :(
| dang wrote:
| A thread from 2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13152255
|
| Thread from 2014 - interesting top comment there:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8791791
|
| (Reposts are ok after about a year:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html)
|
| I've made the year in the title a gwernian range.
| domador wrote:
| If Wikipedia is to retain a deletionist editorial cultural, I'd
| at least like to be able to access the history for deleted
| entries and read old versions of such entries. As it stands,
| those entries seem to be permanently removed from public access
| (and maybe even on the back end.) I don't like that 1984-style
| versioning, which gives the message that certain entries never
| existed in the first place.
|
| (I'd understand a small exception for copyright infringing
| content--that such content should remain unavailable when
| deleted.)
| Stierlitz wrote:
| "The fundamental cause of the decline is the English Wikipedia's
| increasingly narrow attitude as to what are acceptable topics and
| .. what are acceptable sources, where academic & media coverage
| trumps any consideration of other factors."
|
| .. as well as self-serving corporate and political interests. As
| in they sit on an article 24/7 making sure nothing controversial
| get in.
|
| "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is
| given free access to the sum of all human knowledge."
|
| Except for those that contradict the inner party. Go to the Talk
| Page and discuss it they say. Do that and your account gets
| disabled for violating some obscure WP rule.
| qu4ku wrote:
| Gwern's website starts to be next level.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-05-05 23:00 UTC)