# Wikipedians are the reason Wikipedia is dying **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 23, 2016, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921 "2016-02-23T23:02:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Cugel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cugel/32/1199_2.png) [@Cugel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cugel)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2016, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921/101 "2016-03-06T07:50:15Z")
I put a brief note about why a game is cancelled > **[2016 NAB Challenge](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_NAB_Challenge&diff=708556708&oldid=708547957)** > > The 2016 NAB Challenge was the Australian Football League (AFL) pre-season competition played before the 2016 home and away season. It featured 27 matches across 25 days, beginning February 18 and ending March 13. It was the third year in a row where the competition did not have a Grand Final or overall winner. All matches were televised live on Fox Footy as well as on the AFL Live app. > The match between Carlton and Essendon, played on 28 February 2016 at Princes Park was umpired by Eleni Glo... Genius comes along, reverts it saying “not necessary”. Three effing words, and has to be removed. > **[2016 NAB Challenge](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_NAB_Challenge&diff=708557939&oldid=708556708)** > > The 2016 NAB Challenge was the Australian Football League (AFL) pre-season competition played before the 2016 home and away season. It featured 27 matches across 25 days, beginning February 18 and ending March 13. It was the third year in a row where the competition did not have a Grand Final or overall winner. All matches were televised live on Fox Footy as well as on the AFL Live app. > The match between Carlton and Essendon, played on 28 February 2016 at Princes Park was umpired by Eleni Glo... Then immediately re-inserts it in a less concise manner Why? Me, me, me. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2016, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921/102 "2016-03-06T16:20:45Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Nothing should be deleted from Wikipedia, ever, unless it is wrong. Upholding this would mean that all articles about substantial subjects would become enormous, unreadable messes. Editing for clarity and coherence is not Wikipedia’s strong suit, but a policy of no-cuts-ever would be worse. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2016, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921/103 "2016-03-06T16:51:07Z")
I think he means whole-page deletions, not text deletions. But even so I agree with your point that the thing is already in some danger of having star wars crowding out real science & real history (\*slight \*exaggeration for effect :)). If I wanted to put up a vanity page about Me! and it was against policy for it to ever be removed, it’d take about a month for wiki to be comprehensively destroyed. ---
**Author:** ![Green\_Bean](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/green_bean/32/1760_2.png) [@Green\_Bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Green_Bean)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2016, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921/104 "2016-03-08T08:10:05Z")
> [@Zsofia](#): > > See, I’m in South Carolina, and I was reading through the rest of this thread waiting to post the exact same thing, except, you know, only from the other side. WTF why are we odd man out? Maybe we’re so cool that the gamelan ensembes are intimidated by us? > [@Peremensoe](#): > > Upholding this would mean that all articles about substantial subjects would become enormous, unreadable messes. Editing for clarity and coherence is not Wikipedia’s strong suit, but a policy of no-cuts-ever would be worse. I’ve run into a few articles lately that verged on “enormous unreadable messes.” Usually Wikipedia articles are resonably concise, and are organized in such a way that the “extra” info is in a separate section, even a separate page. I think one of the messy ones was for a TV show. I wanted a premise/plot synopsis, which is normally available, but this page had waaay too much infomin what was supposed to be a summary. So, yeah, I’m in favor of reasonable amounts of cutting. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikipedians-are-the-reason-wikipedia-is-dying/746921.md?page=5)