[quote=bryanb post_id=103124 time=1567543922 user_id=2003]
I would say you should definitely keep a copy.
[/quote]

My computer is here and set up, but it's temporarily off until they move me again — a long story deserving of its own article which I'll eventually write — but for right now I'll see what happens. So I can't save the source of the page with Firefox on the Android tablet (as I can do on Firefox for the PC.) But I can save a PDF of the page, (which I did) and I can copy the text from the PDF so even if they delete the article that would still work.

Whoa, I had no idea that Deletionpedia saved the Hugo article. I thought I had checked them when that whole incident went down.

(Also, I have brought that incident up a few times because I haven't satisfied my mind that I've said all I can say about it. That makes a man tedious. I'll stop bringing it up after this conversation dies.)

One of the guys who was the buddy of the original mod that nominated it for deletion (who posted his delete vote and accompanying comment an hour before the [i]other[/i] mod, the mod that has to make the final decision to delete it or not, weighed in ... funny how he did that in the middle of the night US time so nobody could read it and respond to it, what a wacky coincidence, only guy that could respond to it was the closing mod, just a weird, weird coincidence) said that the Hugo article had "link spam" which is one of the most hilarious (in terms of revealing those guys as cunts) pieces to the whole thing. When your article doesn't have any sources, it's shit. Add too many, it's shit. But because people will go to tech journos if they are too obvious about it, they have this whole pseudo intellectual bureaucracy where they get to be little bureaucrats and none of that $80 million went to anyone involved. They did all that for free.

Anyway.

I think the thing is, because I hate everything about Wikipedia except for the one time a week I go there just purely as a reader to read up on something, the frustration lies with the incongruity between my expectations and reality. I expect that it should have been a really cool project but the reality is that the same vague people that post dumb shit on Reddit 24/7 and YouTube comments 24/7 got their hooks in over there. How could they not? It's all these people doing it for free. So I gotta readjust my expectations for what the real world is like.

Thanks for posting those Deletionpedia articles, bryanb. Like I was saying, something happened where I thought they didn't have the Hugo article at first, but I am glad that they do now.

Okay, hopefully I can let this topic drop. :)

[quote=Tdarcos post_id=103132 time=1567567317 user_id=829]
[quote=bryanb post_id=103124 time=1567543922 user_id=2003]
In contrast, Wikipedia has a way more uncertain future. How can any crowdsourced encyclopedia survive indefinitely on just $80 million+ in donations a year? [/quote]
Jesus H. Suffering Christ Almighty! There are companies with 100 employees that make less than a tenth of that. I doubt seriously with that much money and having less than 5 paid employees, they are going anywhere or disappear.
[/quote]
To be clear, that part was a joke. Everyone got it, right? Then again, this is the Internet. Things do shut down and get deleted. Wikipedia's continued existence depends on a foundation that does startlingly little real work but seems very rapacious. Of course, it's still a useful site and remains one of the most popular on the Internet, but I would say the culture over there isn't all that healthy which may lead to problems in the future. It does still work very well when articles have both many readers and many editors. When you get into niche topics and articles that attract far fewer eyeballs, egos start to take over with sometimes destructive results. Unlike metal, Wikipedia does not thrive best in the shadows.
[quote=Tdarcos post_id=103132 time=1567567317 user_id=829]
[quote=bryanb post_id=103124 time=1567543922 user_id=2003]
You can wait to see what happens on Wikipedia before deciding anything, of course. Just make sure you've got a local copy saved.
[/quote]
Unlike lesser wikis like TVTropes, Wikipedia keeps a complete snapshot of every version of an article in its history all the way back to the original posting.. Unless the article is completely removed there's always a backup copy of all previous editions. So I never considered needing to keep a copy. But I might just do that.

I [i]was[/i] considering rewriting the summary to be more concise, but keeping the longer one and expand it to the rest of the books, then put it up on Kindle as a summary for 99¢. . One can dream...
[/quote]

I would say you should definitely keep a copy. I followed [url=http://deletionpedia.org/en/Main_Page]Deletionpedia[/url], a site that archives deleted Wikipedia articles, closely for a while and I was continually surprised by how many articles about things I'd heard of were being summarily deleted. At first, I expected most of the deletions to be articles written by nonfamous people about themselves. That honestly turned out to be a lot rarer than I expected. At least the [url=http://deletionpedia.org/en/Hugo_(programming_language)]Hugo article[/url] and [url=http://deletionpedia.org/en/So_Far_(interactive_fiction)]So Far article[/url] mentioned recently are still up somewhere.

I love the idea of you expanding your article into a series-covering short book. You should definitely do that no matter what happens on Wikipedia. You'd be able to delve more into your own personal opinions about events and characters that way too. And you've got Flack in your corner to give you advice on playing the publishing game. This will be great!

1-2-3.

testing

test

[quote=bryanb post_id=103124 time=1567543922 user_id=2003]
Paul, I thought you did a great job with the summary. [/quote]
Thank you, I a0recite your comments.
[quote=bryanb post_id=103124 time=1567543922 user_id=2003]
At some point, some rogue editor is going to find your article and hack it to pieces because it features original research [/quote]
I once pointed this out, that basically every book, play or movie review constitutes original research since many - if not almost all - of them are based on original research, since the reviews appear on Wikipedia only and are not based on other works. The response I got was that it didn't apply because the original work is the source and that there really isn't a way to do a review based on other reviews if there aren't any, which can happen.
[quote=bryanb post_id=103124 time=1567543922 user_id=2003]
or because the summary isn't concise enough for his tastes or because Silo isn't noteworthy enough. [/quote]
I think a book that is going to be made into a movie by a major studio qualifies as "notable." As for being too wordy, I plead [i]nolo contender[/i].
[quote=bryanb post_id=103124 time=1567543922 user_id=2003]
So, let me make you an offer (one you absolutely can refuse). [/quote]
If I couldn't, I'd have to "go to the mattresses. " Well. I already spend 99% of my time on a mattress, but...
[quote=bryanb post_id=103124 time=1567543922 user_id=2003]
If you add one paragraph to your article expressing your views on what a text adventure version of Silo would be like, I'll be happy to host it in the Essays section of the new Reviews From Trotting Krips site. [/quote]
Sounfs like a good idea.
[quote=bryanb post_id=103124 time=1567543922 user_id=2003]
In contrast, Wikipedia has a way more uncertain future. How can any crowdsourced encyclopedia survive indefinitely on just $80 million+ in donations a year? [/quote]
Jesus H. Suffering Christ Almighty! There are companies with 100 employees that make less than a tenth of that. I doubt seriously with that much money and having less than 5 paid employees, they are going anywhere or disappear.

[quote=bryanb post_id=103124 time=1567543922 user_id=2003]
You can wait to see what happens on Wikipedia before deciding anything, of course. Just make sure you've got a local copy saved.
[/quote]
Unlike lesser wikis like TVTropes, Wikipedia keeps a complete snapshot of every version of an article in its history all the way back to the original posting.. Unless the article is completely removed there's always a backup copy of all previous editions. So I never considered needing to keep a copy. But I might just do that.

I [i]was[/i] considering rewriting the summary to be more concise, but keeping the longer one and expand it to the rest of the books, then put it up on Kindle as a summary for 99¢. . One can dream...

There are lots of books in the Kinlde Store with "Cliff's Notes"-like summaries, sometimes more than one.

Paul, I thought you did a great job with the summary. Unfortunately, I'm not sure Wikipedia is the best place to host it. I'm sure you're aware of what happened to the Hugo Wikipedia article. At some point, some rogue editor is going to find your article and hack it to pieces because it features original research or because the summary isn't concise enough for his tastes or because Silo isn't noteworthy enough. The real reason is he'll need the ego boost he'll get from destroying someone's hard work. The quality of your summary won't matter or even be taken into account.

So, let me make you an offer (one you absolutely can refuse). If you add one paragraph to your article expressing your views on what a text adventure version of Silo would be like, I'll be happy to host it in the Essays section of the new Reviews From Trotting Krips site. That way your article will have a forever digital home regardless of what happens to it on Wikipedia. As long as Robb, Ben, and myself still breathe, your article will be accessible and whole, safe from the reach of even the most zealous of editors. OK, let's be realistic and change that first bit to as long as Robb still breathes, but that's going to be a really long time. At some point, Ben's daughter may take over and keep the site going indefinitely. In contrast, Wikipedia has a way more uncertain future. How can any crowdsourced encyclopedia survive indefinitely on just $80 million+ in donations a year?

You can wait to see what happens on Wikipedia before deciding anything, of course. Just make sure you've got a local copy saved.

I have finished all of part 2, [i]Proper Gauge[/i], and would appreciate again, anyone who liked the book to check my summary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silo_%28series%29

[quote=Jizaboz post_id=102275 time=1562867855 user_id=910]
As I mentioned to you before, I've read and enjoyed this series. Your summary looks fine, but one part made me scratch my head:

" instructed to clean the grime off the silo's external sensors"

I thought it was actually the silo window(s) that were being cleaned, rather than a "sensor". Though it has been a while since I read it..
[/quote]

First, thank you for back-checking me. I wanted to make sure I was correct. So I went back to the book and looked it up.

Page 15 (emphasis added): [size=85]“There’s a lot we don’t know about the old times,” Holston said. He rubbed his eyes and thought about all the paperwork he wasn’t getting done. “Maybe they didn’t have a system for [b]cleaning the sensors[/b], you know? I’ll bet back then, the view upstairs just got blurrier and blurrier until people went crazy, there’d be a revolt or something, and then they’d finally exile a few people to set things straight. Or maybe it was just natural population control, you know, before the lottery.”[/size]

Page 35 (emphasis added): [size=85]The uprisings! Maybe it was just to prevent them from happening over and over again. Holston [b]applied an ablative film on the second sensor[/b] and wondered if the ugly lie of an unpleasant outside world was some misguided attempt to keep people from [i]wanting[/i] out. Could someone have decided that the truth was worse than a loss of power, of control? Or was it something deeper and more sinister? A fear of unabashed, free, many-as-you-like children? So many horrible possibilities.[/size]

Now that confirms what I said was correct, however we have this:
Page 34 (emphasis added): [size=85]Holston [b]polished the grime off the camera lens[/b] and wondered if the gradual blurring was even real. The grime certainly was. He saw it as he rubbed it away. But was it simple dirt, rather than some toxic, airborne grime? Could the program Allison discovered only modify what was already seen? Holston’s mind spun with so many new facts and ideas. He was like an adult child, borne into a wide world, so much to piece together all at once that his head throbbed.[/size]

Thanks to your question, I will correct the Wikipedia listing to read "camera lenses and sensors." This is exactly the sort of thing I wanted, so again, thank you.

As I mentioned to you before, I've read and enjoyed this series. Your summary looks fine, but one part made me scratch my head:

" instructed to clean the grime off the silo's external sensors"

I thought it was actually the silo window(s) that were being cleaned, rather than a "sensor". Though it has been a while since I read it..

There is an article about Hugh Hovey's [i]Silo[/i] trilogy, which consists of [i]Shift[/i], [i]Wool[/i], and [i]Dust[/i] (which is the chronological order and the way the author recommends reading them.) The issue order is [i]Wool[/i], [i]Shift[/i], and [i]Dust[/i].

[i]Wool[/i] came along first, so that's the first one to show up. I have rewritten the summary on Wikipedia for the first segment of [i]Wool[/i], and part of the second. Anyone who has read Wool is requested to examine the plot synopsis and let me know if I've done them right. There is more to do but I am a bit tired.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silo_(series)