The short answer

No.

The medium answer

Not if you want an encyclopedia, but maybe if you want a kaleidoscopic window into the world.

The long answer

About Nuking the Fridge, Newsweek says:

Early in the new “Indiana Jones” sequel, our creaky, 65-year-old hero stumbles onto a nuclear test site, and the warning siren is blaring. Panicked, surrounded by Potemkin houses, he folds himself inside the lead-lined cavity of a refrigerator. Kaboom: the blast sends Indy hurtling across the New Mexico desert, a mushroom cloud rising behind him. He lands and, logic be damned, tumbles out unscathed. The franchise, though, will never recover.

[…]

The phrase was born on May 24—two days after the film opened—and it went viral on movie message boards. In barely a month, it has blown through several Web. 2.0 benchmarks: YouTube tributes, “fridge” haikus, merch-hawking Web sites, “Word of the Day” status on UrbanDictionary.com. “You’re expecting [the movie] to be as great as you remembered it,” says Beth Russell, creator of nukingthefridge.com, “and after the fridge scene, it was like, ‘Oooo-K’.” A new legend is born, for all the wrong reasons.

What say Wikipedia?

Well … nothing.

The Nuking the Fridge article was actually deleted twice — the meme was so powerful that someone who didn’t know about the first deletion created the page again almost immediately. But this type of re-creation is actually against the rules — instead, you have to propose re-creation at “deletion review” (even though, for the uninitiated, there are no hints that the blank page being edited was ever home to an article in the past). So it was deleted again immediately, without discussion.

How many people weighed in on that first deletion? One. It was “speedy deleted” after a single vote. (”Presumption is this was made up by the author and/or their friends.”)

One of many ironies here is that “Nuking the Fridge” is still a requested article — which is to say that sometime after it was deleted, someone saw that the article didn’t exist and added it to the collaborative to-do list.

This type of thing happens all the time. On one of my periodic safaris into deletion land, I saw that List of planets in Futurama had just gone under the axe, and I had an admin put a copy of it in my user space.

A couple days later, someone found my copy through the global search engine and wrote me a note:

I noticed you have a very nice article writen about the planets in futurama; would you consider adding it to the futurama articles, either split up as separate articles for each planet or as one big article? I made the “list of planets”, which was missing from the link in the Futurama Portal (it was red).

I showed him the deletion vote. He said,

I dont understand — if so many people voted keep, why did it get deleted? Now a list of planets is in the list of tasks for the Futurama Project. Seems like this is one of those situations where the right hand dosn’t know what the left is doing.

Stability is good. Instability is bad.

Feeling like the words you type into wikipedia could be read in 100 years — that’s great. Knowing that an article you write might be deleted even if another wikipedian has specifically requested that article: bad. Rewriting an article without knowing that it’s already been written and expunged? Really bad.

Feeling like you have to constantly push back against the deletion tide … well, that kills kittens (where by kittens, I mean “the stuff that powers wikipedia“).

Is there a solution?

I’m working on one, but it’s a secret. In the meantime, Wikipedia’s newest board member, Ting Chen, seems to be concerned about correcting this problem — his wikimania talk was called “Keep the Community Open while Wikipedia matures”.

Wikipedia Weekly had this to say about the talk:

These things that make wikipedia great, not just in english but in the other languages that he’s fluent in, german and chinese — it was interesting talking about how the “quality drives” that we have are driving us against this kind of open model, and driving us towards saying “well, really, if we’re going to have stable versions, we want a highly vetted version we need someone with a phd to do that.”

The foundation is also talking about making page-view statistics available for every article. WWeekly, again:

What Eric’s talking about, using stats long-term, is not just to think of them as some numbers that you go to the website and pull out, but actually thinking about, longer-term, integrating them into the editing process.

That sounds awesome, and it means, among other things, that people will be confronted with the fact that they’re deleting articles that get viewed hundreds of times a week.

For the record, I kind of liked the new movie. Indiana Jones was never realistic, and always had indy escaping in ridiculous ways. You just don’t realize ’cause you saw the first movies when you were a kid.

Posted Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:34:40 and filed under sociology. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.