Talk:Metacrap

Not portmanteau
This article needs to cite Borges' "The Analytical Language of John Wilkins" in addition to "Metacrap..." in its survey of critiques of meta-utopias.

This is a brilliant term. However I don't think this is a portmanteau word. Meta is a recursive term. Metaphysics is (approx) the physics of physics Meta data is data about data

Obviously its the author's call but seems to me that

metacrap is crap about crap

Now, I don't think this is the author's message but I suspect that was the "lie" he was using in the marketing of this wonderful meme. Victuallers 12:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Potential Additional Reference
I don't have time to go through it right now, but there was a podcast in May 2007 from Wired with an interview of the essay's author. (http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/05/metacrap_and_fl.html) That reference would be a valid, recognizable, secondary source to prevent this article's deletion. I'm under the consideration that this one essay, having been written five years ago, still being talked about as relevant in recent months would be reason to keep this article about the concept. But it does need to be expanded. Any volunteers? - Westleyd (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Please Keep and Expand
Any design and/or technical project needs to know the problems with its objectives just as much as the objectives themselves. Otherwise, it becomes a self-referential love fest. Though very brief, this article has relevance to everything from AI to Web 3.0. Why? Because Meta-anything has become an ends in of itself. In other words, it's a concept with a lot of buz that folks focus on without any real mechanism for instantiating a semantic systems. I've attended a number of Cognitive Computing and virtual worlds symposiums and all their efforts would be vastly enhanced if they started by solving the problems outlined in Doctorow's essay.

Meaning is a very non-linear system. As such, these are messy, hard problems; though not impossible. Doctorow's critique serves to refine the solution set by boldly pointing to the problems. I will try to add to this article. Please keep it. Cheers, Wolfworks (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your comments and second the opinion that this article is valid and notable enough for a page of it's own. The term Metacrap is of enough importance that I believe it will only grow in popularity and must remain easily found on Wikipedia (it is already listed in the top criticism of the Semantic web article). I also think there is much that could be added to this article and hope tat I or another motivated author will find the time to do so. --Inarius (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This article should not be deleted - it is very important. @Victuallers: The fact that metacrap is NOT crap about crap, but crap metadata is in itslef worth preserving too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.102.27.198 (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The conviction that 'metacrap' is a useful concept is held by a minuscule minority congregated on this discussion page. This article should be deleted because it is essentially an entire article for one single, very unimportant article. There are surely many articles on problems of (self-)evaluation in the field of philosophy of science and elsewhere which surpass the term 'metacrap' in sophistication and validity. The existence of this article is predicated on Doctorow's heightened visibility in certain online-circles as opposed to the rest of the world and Wikipedia should not represent those topics which are deemed relevant by a microscopic part of the population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.124.140 (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If someone nominated the article for deletion, whether to keep would be decided based on WP:GNG. Specifically, the article requires reliable sources that establish notability. Currently there are only primary sources which makes the article vulnerable to deletion. --Kvng (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fallacious arguments
Some of Doctorow's arguments are poorly-reasoned, and are logical fallacies; he makes hasty generalizations and suffers from selection bias.

Having noticed it, myself, it's merely "original research" at this point in time. Perhaps there are sources on the web which critique Doctorow's essay, and would be credible evidence of authoritative counter-arguments. catsmoke (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)