35:
284:, that usually gets thrown out if ever charged at all.) And yet, you get these procedural vandals on patrol, who don't understand what's being said, who don't have the interest or patience to look into the subject, but who can't let it go either, and who on the most non-controversial and technical of content think
97:
You might think the best way to assert your "authority" by deleting useful and correct information from
Knowledge (XXG) was to put it up "for discussion", but those discussions can and sometimes do go the other way. There seems to be a much lower bar for merging or moving perfectly good articles and
71:
There seems to be a HUGE temptation for
Wikipedians who are not Subject Matter Experts to try and police articles on whatever subject matter they know nothing about. No sooner do these Wikipedians—present company excluded—seem to have vaguely grasped that X is a kind of Y, do they get a huge rush of
306:
Thus, people who do not understand the purpose of a rule often succeed in misapplying the rule, and they're using it to redline content areas they do not understand or care for – which really should be a big hint to leave that for somebody else to look into and after, but their ego won't allow them
88:
assassinated is at all initially added to the Y article, it's rarely well worked in, and over time, deletionist editors who consider it off-topic will remove it. Thus the information that was in X is then no longer in Y either, but people looking for X are redirected to Y, where they find nothing
98:
stubs. If there's no obvious merge target, just move the victim article to draftspace, which you can do on chutzpah alone, with no discussion. Said "space" of course is custom-formulated to be out of the limelight, less likely to be seen by others – much less improved, so it's really homicide on
323:
As for little old me, I was just looking for an article suitable to point a student to, one which would explain the difference between discrete and more integrated electronics. Now I've written this essay instead. Was that helpful? I don't know. It depends on what the rest of you do about it, I
328:
know that had I even tried editing
Knowledge (XXG) to put back in place an actually helpful little article I could have pointed other people to, the procedural vandals would have pounced, and tried to police the heck out of the attempt. Which is really quite disgraceful more so than merely
164:, which never explains what a discrete circuit is. The word "discrete" appears three times in that article, in two different senses, none of which is that of a discrete circuit, and all of which mentions presuppose the reader's pre-existing understanding of the term.
194:— which is confusing at best, arguably at least bordering on being technically incorrect, and will just confound any reader who didn't already know what it means for transistors to be discrete as opposed to more integrated. At least the
198:
section does contain a very brief parenthetical hint that might enlighten, but that's not anywhere any of these redirects are pointing and makes very short shrift of a concept and category of components that could have used its own
126:
There currently is no good explanation on
Knowledge (XXG) (that yours truly could find) that would explain to a novice just what it means for an electronic component, transistor logic especially, to be discrete.
102:. But in terms of covering your tracks while pretending to good faith, nothing really beats mergers and redirects, leaving behind only displacement, confusion, and an edit history that's hard to find
295:
Ironically, categorically true content, topics with thousands of examples are much harder to produce bogosity-compliant citations for. You might and should be able to cite who it was that said
142:, just to the article in general. The article does not contain any section that explains anything at all about discrete logic. It does sport a multi-hatnote, which points readers to other
273:
rules, they only care for some particular rules they can cite and use and abuse to seem important and authoritative – "making an impact" and "helping the project" (by vandalising it).
315:
And that's how you create categorical unhelpfulness in an encyclopædia: You send obviously good content and the editors that brought it here into oblivion, for all the wrong reasons.
119:
175:
article, which among the current lineup comes closest to explaining just what distinguishes discrete from more integrated components, but ultimately it too falls short of that.
106:
the rare odd reader realises it might be there and starts looking for it. All too frequently, the displaced literally lose their name just as their history is lost.
280:
should be cited, but otherwise sound material should not be disputed purely on the basis of its being uncited. (When you're arrested for resisting arrest
307:
to do that. They have stats to uphold and a rep to maintain. All watched over by machines of loving grace in the blind pursuit of participation badges.
269:
Rules exist for a reason. That's actually acknowledged—as a rule—in various places on
Knowledge (XXG). But procedural vandals don't care for
50:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
277:
51:
76:" of the then-ensuing discussions among mostly similarly-minded non-SMEs tends to be a merger, which inevitably eventually results in a
222:
a perfectly nice little article that gave an explanation of the essential concept, but it got murdered by merge over a decade ago.
123:", is what finally motivated the creation of this essay. Everything kvetched about herein is true as of the time of this writing:
72:
insight, to satisfy which perceived achievement they immediately push for X to be redirected to Y, and of course the fashionable "
150:
186:, which finally explains everything. Nope, just kidding! It doesn't really explain discrete transistors either. It does say
73:
352:
192:"Other packaging techniques for discrete transistors as chips include direct chip attach (DCA) and chip-on-board (COB)"
334:
259:
for such procedural vandalism seems to be claims that the victim articles were "unsourced opinion" or similar.
149:
The aforementioned multi-hatnote "helpfully" suggests information on discrete TTL logic could be found in the
276:
Not everything on
Knowledge (XXG) needs to be cited. Citations are needed to settle real disputes. Material
55:
262:
The fundamental problem here is one of people not understanding—and having complete disregard for—the
330:
299:
had a thing with his mother, but it's much harder to produce procedural vandal-proof citations for a
207:
172:
179:
17:
43:
244:
168:
161:
188:"Discrete transistors can be individually packaged transistors or unpackaged transistor chips"
157:
203:
146:, which also do not explain even the fundamentals of the fundamental concept in question.
153:
article, but it can't, because information on discrete TTL is nowhere in that article.
131:
338:
346:
292:
hurried and uninterested bogosity because They Have A Rule (like a one-trick pony).
99:
58:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
300:
195:
183:
135:
120:
a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object
236:
article at one time, but there again, the
Deletionista had it in for it.
296:
206:, you will also just be redirected to nowhere in particular in the
68:
Those who would commit infocide first move or "merge" articles.
29:
156:
The other diversion target suggested by the multi-hatnote is
66:
Those who would commit genocide first displace their victims.
256:
240:
233:
226:
219:
89:much relevant – so that might as well be nowhere.
8:
178:Readers savvy enough to start looking for a
288:should donate more of your time to satisfy
117:The following example, encountered after "
52:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
84:the information in the X article being
7:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Redirect to nowhere
56:thoroughly vetted by the community
25:
160:, but that too is a redirect, to
33:
27:Essay on editing Knowledge (XXG)
247:, which now no longer exists.
243:article, which also linked to
1:
339:03:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
151:transistor–transistor logic
369:
65:
232:There was an even better
93:How to murder information
138:. Not to any section of
282:and for no other reason
353:Knowledge (XXG) essays
171:are redirected to the
80:. That's because even
278:likely to be disputed
225:The same fate befell
215:Oh, but it gets worse
196:Transistor#Importance
54:, as it has not been
303:article in general.
227:an even earlier stub
208:electronic component
184:Transistor#Packaging
173:electronic component
167:Readers looking for
245:discrete components
234:discrete transistor
180:discrete transistor
169:discrete components
78:redirect to nowhere
251:Procedural vandals
202:If you look for a
182:are redirected to
162:electronic circuit
239:There even was a
64:
63:
16:(Redirected from
360:
241:discrete circuit
158:discrete circuit
37:
36:
30:
21:
368:
367:
363:
362:
361:
359:
358:
357:
343:
342:
331:ReadOnlyAccount
321:
313:
253:
217:
204:discrete device
115:
95:
69:
60:
59:
34:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
366:
364:
356:
355:
345:
344:
329:unfortunate. —
320:
317:
312:
309:
257:popular excuse
252:
249:
216:
213:
212:
211:
200:
176:
165:
154:
147:
132:Discrete logic
114:
108:
94:
91:
67:
62:
61:
49:
48:
40:
38:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
365:
354:
351:
350:
348:
341:
340:
336:
332:
327:
318:
316:
311:Into oblivion
310:
308:
304:
302:
298:
293:
291:
287:
283:
279:
274:
272:
267:
265:
260:
258:
250:
248:
246:
242:
237:
235:
230:
228:
223:
221:
214:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
174:
170:
166:
163:
159:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
137:
134:redirects to
133:
130:
129:
128:
124:
122:
121:
112:
109:
107:
105:
101:
92:
90:
87:
83:
79:
75:
57:
53:
47:
45:
39:
32:
31:
19:
325:
322:
314:
305:
294:
289:
285:
281:
275:
270:
268:
263:
261:
254:
238:
231:
224:
218:
191:
187:
143:
139:
125:
118:
116:
110:
103:
96:
85:
81:
77:
70:
41:
324:suppose. I
301:tragic hero
266:of rules.
86:assimilated
42:This is an
140:logic gate
136:logic gate
74:compromise
220:There was
347:Category
319:Epilogue
210:article.
199:article.
144:nowheres
111:Discrete
297:Oedipus
264:purpose
113:example
104:even if
190:, and
290:their
271:those
44:essay
335:talk
255:The
286:you
349::
337:)
326:do
229:.
100:HP
82:if
333:(
46:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.