Quoting Wikipedia: WOS was...

TK90XFan

In the Brazilian discussion board, one member figured out that English Wikipedia article about WOS apparently considers the site is dead:

World of Spectrum was a website devoted to...

Near at the end of article the death of WOS is reinforced, citing existence of broken links and inaccessible files.
I don't customarily take Wikipedia too seriously but I think this article isn't aware of work done since Martijn's quit. What you think about this?
Note: I checked Portuguese article and there is no mention or suggestion of WOS being inactive.

rich_chandler

We don't feel dead...

...we're getting more and more members every day, the forums are getting very lively again and there's load on WoS to positive about.

1024MAK

karingal wrote: »

We don't feel dead...

...we're getting more and more members every day, the forums are getting very lively again and there's load on WoS to positive about.

So how many user names do you have now? I can't believe you can find the time to keep it up :))

rich_chandler

1024MAK wrote: »

karingal wrote: »

We don't feel dead...

...we're getting more and more members every day, the forums are getting very lively again and there's load on WoS to positive about.

So how many user names do you have now? I can't believe you can find the time to keep it up :))

Just the one...

A sign of how popular we are currently can be gauged by the number of spam accounts trying (and failing) to join...

RetroTechie

I've noticed that on Wikipedia, quite a few retro-computing related articles are written in past tense. As in "days gone by". Which is reasonable if you look at a system from popularity or commercial point of view.

But for community sites like WoS I think that should be different. They have their own dynamic. A site can start loooong after the days of original systems' popularity, and grow big / popular even when the last specimens of original systems are dead & buried.

About WoS current status, WP article is partly right though: yes forums are still active, yes site maintenance has been taken over by others. But I don't see any content updates happening, and yes even basic things like internal links are broken in several places. Or people post they've found a MIA, with someone responding "relax, it's already archived just not (yet) uploaded". How is one to know if you check the archive & nothing's there? :-/

Lee Fogarty

This article is being constantly spammed by one of Nick's aliases/puppets. He's posted on his twitter that 'we found it amusing' which is quite scary as it indicates he has more than one person in his head.

rich_chandler

Lee Fogarty wrote: »

This article is being constantly spammed by one of Nick's aliases/puppets. He's posted on his twitter that 'we found it amusing' which is quite scary as it indicates he has more than one person in his head.

There's room inside his head for someone else despite the size of his enormous ego?

1024MAK

karingal wrote: »

1024MAK wrote: »

karingal wrote: »

We don't feel dead...

...we're getting more and more members every day, the forums are getting very lively again and there's load on WoS to positive about.

So how many user names do you have now? I can't believe you can find the time to keep it up :))

Just the one...

I presume that you do know that I was joking?

karingal wrote: »

A sign of how popular we are currently can be gauged by the number of spam accounts trying (and failing) to join...

If you need any help, and you only have to ask.

Mark

rich_chandler

I knew you were joking Mark!!!!

ewgf

This is what happens when I don't post for a day - the average quality of posts for that day drops by 879,000,000,000 %, and everyone thinks the forum has reached the empty-except-for-bots-and-scams state of so many other lamented forums.

Sorry lads, it won't happen again.

rich_chandler

ewgf wrote: »

This is what happens when I don't post for a day - the average quality of posts for that day drops by 879,000,000,000 %, and everyone thinks the forum has reached the empty-except-for-bots-and-scams state of so many other lamented forums.

Sorry lads, it won't happen again.

I suspect we could be in the middle of a nuclear winter when only cockroaches survived and you'd still be posting...

Lee Fogarty

Does anyone know how to stop people vandalising wiki pages?

GReW

Lee Fogarty wrote: »

Does anyone know how to stop people vandalising wiki pages?

I had to do this a few years ago for a school I worked at, although the procedure may be slightly different here, since in that case there were also child protection and sub judice issues.

Basically, you can flag an article as being subject to vandalism; on the grounds of malicious edits; or offensive or defamatory content. Wikipedia's initial response is usually to temporarily lock the article to prevent all editing, while the case is reviewed by admins. They will then either: set the article to be either fully-protected (can only be edited by admins), semi-protected (can't be edited by new users or IP-only users) or leave the article open to all editing but on a regular watch list for a period of time (sort of "probation"). In any case, they'll set a review period, of anywhere between a few months and a year; after which time they'll determine if the edit lock is still justified.

Lock requests tend to carry more weight from users with an established account and reliable article edits; or if you can prove you have a legitimate involvement or connection to the organisation or person who is the subject of the article.

The full procedure is outlined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection

1024MAK

View source for World of Spectrum

en.wikipedia.org wrote:

This page is currently protected so that only administrators can edit it.

Mark