Talk:W00w00

Discussion about having numerous non-notable entries

There are too many names of people that are non-notable, and the entire list is unsourced. Rather than delete it all, I thought a compromise would be to leave the people who have articles. Otherwise it's not useful, and is actually more of a vanity project. Please discuss before restoring the names. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Just a note that I've been reverted without discussion and have reverted their revert again, and again requested that the editor bring the discussion here. The editor, with few edits, has claimed there's consensus for the members on the unsourced list in this article to be exempt from Wikipedia's notability guidelines. He also reverted my removal of the notability tag, to this article's detriment, which I'm sure he didn't mean to do. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

One of the ways the members of w00w00 communicate is on Facebook. When I brought the change to their attention it was suggested to undo the change. Now that we see the desire for the change, that is to follow Wikipedia's guidelines, we've started the discussion of what to change. This involves contacting the people listed in article. The people in the discussion were 5 of the people listed in the article; Dragos Ruiu, Jonathan Bowie, Rob Mosher, Jeff Nathan, and Kirby Kuehl (including myself)AdamPrato (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd also be careful about violating the site's COI policy - related to editing an article about yourself. Please read WP:COI. I think your best bet is to use the AFC process to request articles on those members who you feel are notable. You can start a draft in your sandbox if you are comfortable with the syntax, and then submit it. That would be an acceptable step towards getting a particular person's name in the article. Sorry if this seems to be overly bureaucratic - but it helps maintain the encyclopedia as a neutral useful resource, rather than as a promotional platform. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

One has to point out that some domain expertise in Information Security would go a long way to making a determination of notability, lest this look a little like Dunning-Kreuger personified. To wit: Wikipedia would find it very difficult to administer any of their computer systems without SSH, and to that end without contributions to SSH by Dug Song and Niels Provos . Appreciate the reference to the COI policy, but given the context it can be difficult to distinguish what at first appeared to be an ad-hoc edit from vandalism. Surely one can understand a revert to undo vandalism as separate and distinct from self aggrandizing. Jeffnathan 19:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This is Tim Scanlon: timtempleton, your ignorance does not form a valid basis for judgement. You really need to just move along and go harass other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostwithashell (talk • contribs) 19:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added this page to my watch list and will chime in after we get more of a consensus. If people are notable, it's not hard to write articles about them. There are several examples in the current article that you can use as templates, to help you get started. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Assuming that, under the COI policy, members of w00w00 are prohibited from writing their own individual pages and yet in order to list them on this page, which stood for nearly a decade without much perturbation, individual pages must be authored each notable member, how should we proceed? Are we to begin a social media campaign to explain that we need other individuals to save our wikipedia page? I'm sure you can see the catch-22 here. However, if you were offering to assist in that effort, rather than overturn the apple cart, we'd gladly accept your assistance, TimTempleton. Dug Song is a great place to start; Cisco just acquired his company for $2.35Bn, and he's widely recognized as an exceptionally skilled individual by his peers. We do admire your tenacity in deciding to pick on a bunch of computer hackers... that does take a certain type of bravery. :) Jeffnathan 01:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, hackers tend to be creative in pursuing their goals, and even moreso when annoyed. While I’m sure some folks appreciate your minutia and regulations, please do not presume to speak for a group of folks you seem to know very little about, but whom, as Mr. Nathan implied, probably would not be so fun to annoy. Why don’t you let us specify who wants to be listed, and indeed who should be listed in a roster, for I’m fairly certain we have radically different metrics of notability. If your rules require us to find third parties to do so, I’m sure we can someone neutral with more domain knowledge to accomplish this, otherwise I think it’s fair to say there is some consensus amongst the folks this page is attempting to document (and doing an uncharacteristically inadequate job of, btw) against your edits and logic underlying it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamtheshell (talk • contribs) 04:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@AdamPrato, Ghostwithashell, Jeffnathan, and Iamtheshell: Dear all. Tim asked me to take a look at this article and I have eventually got round to it today. Verifiability is a cornerstone of Wikipedia and as such it is perfectly valid to remove information that is not cited to a reliable source. As editors, it is not up to us to use our knowledge to decide whether or not a subject is notable - we rely only on what others have written. Likewise, we are not a directory that aims to list everyone who participated in an organisation. I have gone through the long list and searched for sources to see whether the name listed could be verified as participants of w00w00 and also looked to see whether they are (or may be) notable, per our notability requirements for biographies. For many of the names I couldn't find any reliable sources linking them to the group. For others, they were mentioned in the news articles, so I have kept them, but they did not appear to be notable, so I have not linked their names and instead added a brief description of who they are (according to the sources cited). There are a couple who do look notable and for them I have added some other references supporting that. It sounds as if there is plenty more that could be written about the group's activities, but that needs to happen elsewhere before it can be included here. If you think there are omissions remaining, then please link to some sources and I will take a look. If you want to make any other changes to the article, COI doesn't prevent you, you just need to be careful. It would be good if it explained who each of the notable members is for example, as I have done for some. SmartSE (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

"Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" - this is meant to be an article about the group, not a list. The members in the article are there to provide information about the relationships that people in the group have. We're all aware that there ought to be more information in the article than what's there. That said, we're working on it.Ghostwithashell (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ghostwithashell: Yes that's correct. When did I infer anything else? Names can only be included if they are verifiable and made into redlinks if there is a possibility that they are independently notable. SmartSE (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

move along

Your original complaint was based on major ignorance, and now you're trying to backfill with pedantry. We'll take your advice under advisement, but speaking for the group here, please move along and go harass other people. Ghostwithashell (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)