241–250 of 387 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If indeed it is one individual. With the intensity of edits it would not be at all surprising if this editor was in fact more than one individual masquerading behind a single account.
Why would they pretend to be one editor?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not a fair comparison. Linux patches generally gets accepted based on technical merit, some politics aside; But it seems like most Wikipedia contributions are subject to the inside political considerations and bureaucracy.
Wikipedia contributions are generally subject to sourcing requirements (i.e. information must be backed by reliable secondary sources), not "political considerations." Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth itself. See this example that illustrates the policy using the flat earth theory[1]: > "Wikipedia is not worried per se about whether the theory that the Earth is flat is true. There must be current, relia…
And to add an anecdote to this, in multiple occasions, my contributions were reverted with some jargon that I suppose suggested that my sources (local journalist) were not credible, after adding more mainstream (CNN or Washpost, can't remember), the whole article was deleted yet with some other jargon that I couldn't bother figuring out.
So, from where I stand, the notion that Wikipedia contributions are not subject to political considerations is laughable.
My friends and I had a shameful game in uni where we competed to see who could make the most egregious edits to wikipedia without getting reverted. What was surprising was just how easy it was. We started with minor edits in small articles, just adding our own name to some list of notable achievers. Then, due to competition, we would add an entire paragraph that fabricated an event. Like adding ourself as a conquista…
It is easy to mess up public places. You can spit on the floor in a bus, throw trash on a street, vandalize Wikipedia. Or you can clean the trash and help Wikipedia. The choice is yours. There's no mystical powers coming in and cleaning up after you - just you and people exactly like you. So before complaining "nobody cared" ask yourself - how did I help? What did I do to expect others to clean up after me and feel e…
That sounds very noble but imagine every time you lifted a bit of litter you had to argue with someone about why it should be put in the bin. Sometimes even when you win the argument they take it out of the bin and throw it down again.
That's how many qualified-to-contribute people feel about Wikipedia now. I run all my web searches with '-wikipedia' as I lack any confidence in its pages. But that's only half the battle, it doesn't address people who arrive on topic-specific fora with statements like 'Wikipedia says that..'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's "rampant" on Wikipedia, you should have no trouble pointing out examples. So, respectfully, I'd ask that to support your argument with evidence, you do that. I had trouble editing technical topics I was familiar with, too, and found it incredibly aggravating. I'd write demonstrably true, helpful, factual content about something only to have it struck for lack of sourcing. It took awhile to get through my head…
As examples I've encountered, virtually anything touching on the Kochs, Koch Industries, the Koch foundations (and other "charitable" organisations), or their interests, particularly global warming topics, and most especiaally their stable of denialists. It's not that valid and truthful information cannot be added, but it runs a fearsome gauntlet of protectors.
As examples I've encountered, virtually anything touching on Soros, Open Society Foundations, Clinton Foundation, The Climate Reality Project (and other "charitable" organisations), or their interests, particularly global warming topics, and most especiaally their stable of alarmists.
It's not that valid and truthful information cannot be added, but it runs a fearsome gauntlet of protectors.
Imagine being in their shoes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia is useful for looking up technical info that there is no conflict over. It is not a good source for diving into a top-level controversial topic as those articles are long and have many places for people to stump and push for their ideas. The more specific a topic (think, a specific author associated with an ideology vs. the page for the ideology) the better. I think I've just adopted these mental heuristics…
Where would one go to dive into a top-level controversial topic? Outside of doing the research oneself or having a organization which is explicit nonpartisan with the goal of unbiased reporting (ie fact checking sites), what options are left beside Wikipedia?
Major non-partisan news organizations. Generally, their news is relatively unbiased; editorials are meant to be biased, of course. Search their news archives.
Major non-partisan think tanks can be fantastic sources, but be a bit careful about their funding.
Encyclopedia Britannica is excellent, with articles generally written by domain experts. Coverage isn't nearly as broad as Wikipedia, but otherwise it's a great first stop for most topics. They let you read a few free articles, but don't hesitate to pay for quality information.
Review articles in academic journals: An expert reviews the state of the literature. Search Google Scholar.
University libraries often have fantastic study guides online, written by experts in their fields.
Many academic fields have excellent online resources and aggregations. In philosophy (extending into the philosophical aspects of math, humanities, and more), the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. For the academic study of the Judeo-Christian Bible, there is Oxford Biblical Studies Online: for Islam, there is Oxford Islamic Studies Online. And professors often put together ad-hoc websites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a resource, not a WP page. It has no talk page. I'm trying to get a sense of what the actual argument was. It's not a good diagram, and its author is clearly trying to attach it in as many prominent places as they can, which is not great. But I still don't know what the actual controversy is.
You can see the "File usage on other wikis" section to see Wikipedia pages in which any commons file is being used. I see a list of couple pages for the particular resource linked there, and verified that the resource exists in those pages.
Judging by the time card, I would bet multiple individuals are using this account. And they're probably getting paid to do it.
Many wikipedians are obsessive types. Also why would multiple people pretend to be one. Groups are more effective than individuals on Wikipedia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can it be considered not arcane when it contains gems like "Wikipedia:Be bold" and "Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". In other words, when I'm skirting a rule, I'm "being bold". When you claim your edit did not violate some rule any more than my edit did, you're "disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point". If these issues are resolved by reasonable folks, it may still work, but Wikipedia…
What is nuance and actually reading what these titles say? It's all written out for you and there's no contradiction. Also, no one actually uses the disrupt point like that.
>no one actually uses the disrupt point like that.
You're using institutional knowledge here, not something that's obvious straight from the text. This is exactly the point GP is making.
As someone who's regularly donated to Wikipedia every year, this is concerting. I can't trust Wikipedia. I'm shocked actually.