Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reality tagging


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Reality tagging
Neologism Denni &#9775; 00:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Weirdly inaccurate too.  Nobody was putting protest stickers on things until 2005? Devotchka 01:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NN neologism.  --Clay Collier 07:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the author isn't claiming that protest stickers were invented in 2005, but that 2005 is when the term 'reality tagging' was coined for the use of protest stickers in a particular political context in Lithuania.  Removing all articles that are not notable in the English-speaking world may tend to perpetuate the systematic bias in Wikipedia some folks are concerned about.  Still, this might be more of a Wiktionary thing.  TECannon 11:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete No need to worry about systemic bias: this is a dicdef and would still be a dicdef if it was talking about American stickers. If we want an article about protest stickers, it should be called protest stickers or be a section in the protest article or something, not called by a word that was invented well after the act it describes. --Last Malthusian 14:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment article is an orphan.Geni 15:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Is it protest stickers? I think it's tagging, because there's a significant difference between protesting by slapping hate stickers on the doors like "Don't vote Bush" (unconstructively, almost by definition) or sticking stickers that give usual information to other users/consumers, suggestions on further human and political action, and carry a corrective/disciplining message? What if the movement adopts any of the new technologies (say, mobile phone tagging)? This will of course still be reality tagging - but only then the critics will consider it worthy of an article? So no chance of an Indian, African or Lithuanian concepts getting into Wikipedia - unless they use Western technology? Cool - what if the Chinese patented printing in the 12th century? I also support previous remarks on Wikipedia's (and Wikinews') bias. It's firsly a cultural bias. Also, just remembered following the links at the bottom of the article and reading that the concept (and presumably the term) has been featured in a major Lithuanian paper. Is it still a neologism, then? Should we wait for a book in English on that?
 * Delete, then, per Last Malthusian. TECannon 16:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.-->Newyorktimescrossword 19:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Reality tagging is a new concept original enough to deserve its own Wikipedia article. It is not suited for Wiktionary because it is related to several new and fast-changing concepts, firstly tagging. Tagging itself is a new and developing technology (only started to be used in mainstream web services - even Yahoo 360 is still in beta only). This and the term's use by a movement may mean that the term undergoes some changes in its meaning relatively quickly (I happen to be interested in electronic tagging - the technologies and uses are from mobile phones to shops - and moving ahead).
 * Comment Ok, for starters, the first comment seems to be talking about something different to the actual article (*edit* Political stickers are certainly not a new concept). And the second one has already been addressed: this is a new term to describe an old form of protest. It's got nothing to do with the place the word came from, it's about the time it came from. If we are to have an article about protest stickers, it shouldn't be called by a neologism. At the most it should be a redirect to stickers, which already notes their political significance. Thirdly, the second anon seems to have a rather weird pro-Bush POV. "Don't vote Bush" sounds very like a "suggestion on further human and political action" to me. --Last Malthusian 10:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Dear Last Malthusian, from what I see I conclude that you avoided to address all the indirect questions and arguments found in my previous comments. Do you believe that the reality tagging (as described in the article) is closer to protest stickers (disregarding the several differences I pointed above) or to mobile tagging (like http://www.semapedia.org/)? I believe that it's closer to Semapedia, Bango etc (because it has EVERYTHING to do with the concept of cellular or otherwise tagging and NOTHING to do with protest stickers except the media it uses in a certain country - presumably due to cost restraints. What you are saying is that Gandhi didn't invent the Freedom. But he achieved it a highly original way. You also advocate a very typical Anglo-American concept of "clear writing" - which refuses foreign (cough - French/European - cough) terms and prefers to use language as economically as possible, thus creating a formal speak stripped of most exitement and emotion, full of HOME-INVENTED neologisms ("folksonomy" comes to my mind; never heard of it in other languages; it's wikipedia site even states it's a neologism!) - just like your brief/non-existent response to my questions. Because it was you who didn't respond, please have another opportunity to do so - look at the 4 points bellow:

reality tagging neologism: refuted (used by mainstream media in the country of Lithuania) similarity with historical meaning of "protest stickers": sticker media; other concepts bearing such similarity are price stickers (1,99), discount stickers (2 for 1), etc. similarity with future meaning of "protest stickers": probably non-existent; mobile or RFID technologies will replace the use of sticker media in countries/by activists that can afford it. time (if you refuse to believe the 3 above arguments - for reasons that escape me): as a person said above, the term "reality tagging" was first used in 2005 in a Lithuanian context. Does anybody disagree?

To finish with - why is Flash Mob in Wikipedia? Isn't it just a good-old protest mob, or just mob? Does it's coordination with new technologies (mobile phones and the internet) make it a new concept, the (usual) political pointlessness of the act, or the attention of Anglo-American corporate media, like CNN and BBC? Or maybe a similarly titled book by an American author (Howard Rheingold)? Was it that an American invented "flashmobs" - or was he the first/the only one who cared to advertise them on CNN? Regards.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.