Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia: Long-Term Abuse

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 89 posts

Re: Wikipedia: Long-Term Abuse

#71

Post by myself248 »

longtermaway wrote: post #24

I'll share my story with a long-term abuse case. It started on the Simone Biles article. An editor kept trying to question whether or not she had attended University of the People. There were numerous media accounts where she reported or was reported as doing such, but he would dismiss these all on the claim that they were "promotional." Over the ensuing weeks, I engaged him in discussion on the talk page along with…

Is there a point at which Wikipedia can or should seek restraining orders against some of the more egregious offenders?

Like, editing "farts" into articles is one thing, but some of these people sound seriously dangerous.

Re: Wikipedia: Long-Term Abuse

#72

Post by stolenmerch »

I've never found editing Wikipedia to be a pleasant experience. Unless it's a totally obscure topic, there are just too many people who feel entitled ownership to the page and will fight you on every edit. This isn't exactly the abuse described here, but it feels bad when you just want to help. I tried adding the marriage of a celebrity couple once on the day it happened and someone was there to make sure THEY got to add it by reverting my changes until I just gave up.

Re: Wikipedia: Long-Term Abuse

#73

Post by whoknows2 »

photochemsyn wrote: post #70

Wikipedia is mostly useless as a reliable source of information. There are exceptions but for anything beyond superficial information you really have to look elsewhere. I generally block it from results. One of the biggest problems is the broken links issue. Supposedly all information on Wikipedia is sourced to newspaper articles, books, research reports etc. but more often than not those source links are broken. It…

> mostly useless

that's a bit overstated, it's fine to get started on a topic and about broken links, you do realize you can help fix them as well right

Re: Wikipedia: Long-Term Abuse

#74

Post by photochemsyn »

whoknows2 wrote: post #73
photochemsyn wrote: post #70

Wikipedia is mostly useless as a reliable source of information. There are exceptions but for anything beyond superficial information you really have to look elsewhere. I generally block it from results. One of the biggest problems is the broken links issue. Supposedly all information on Wikipedia is sourced to newspaper articles, books, research reports etc. but more often than not those source links are broken. It…

> mostly useless that's a bit overstated, it's fine to get started on a topic and about broken links, you do realize you can help fix them as well right

Wikipedia is something of a propaganda circus. Anything related to prominent politicians or other public figures, or governmental activities, is heavily edited by anonymous persons, most like part of their 'media image management consultant teams' or whatever they're calling PR monkeys these days.

Generally the more obscure the topic, the more reliable the information, so there's that.

Re: Wikipedia: Long-Term Abuse

#75

Post by whoknows2 »

stolenmerch wrote: post #72

I've never found editing Wikipedia to be a pleasant experience. Unless it's a totally obscure topic, there are just too many people who feel entitled ownership to the page and will fight you on every edit. This isn't exactly the abuse described here, but it feels bad when you just want to help. I tried adding the marriage of a celebrity couple once on the day it happened and someone was there to make sure THEY got to…

I think this is a problem with wikis in general. The idea is great, but the execution is 50/50.

Re: Wikipedia: Long-Term Abuse

#76

Post by laverya »

swilliamsio wrote: post #53
narrator wrote: post #15

Today I learned, while reading about "fancruft"[1], that there are 500 Wikipedia pages devoted to individual Simpsons episodes.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fancruft [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Simpsons_episodes

See also: Pokemon test[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pok%C3%A9mon_test

And thanks to Wikipedia culling all the fancruft (including pokemon articles), we now have 10,000 ad-ridden wiki clones, one for each fandom.

I REALLY can't imagine this was the best decision in the long term.

Re: Wikipedia: Long-Term Abuse

#77

Post by pyuser583 »

kortilla wrote: post #44
pyuser583 wrote: post #23

> Prolific sockpuppeter with over 500 socks which inserts hoaxes about lions existing in Montana. I am in awe. Edit: it seems there actually are lions in Montana: https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/mountain-lions-montana So why the hoaxes?

Not sure if English is your native language, but in the US at least, a mountain lion (a.k.a puma and cougar) is never referred to as just a “lion”. A “lion” is the thing in the zoo with a big mane that sprays pee on people and appears in broadway plays and documentaries narrated by David Attenborough

I’m a native English speaker, but this is one of the quirks I’ve never learned.

I guess it’s like how naked mole rates are neither moles nor rats.

Re: Wikipedia: Long-Term Abuse

#78

Post by tremon »

sethammons wrote: post #67
dclowd9901 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since this seems to be the curated "hilarious ones" thread, I'll throw in my favorite: "Prolific sockpuppeter with over 500 socks which inserts hoaxes about lions existing in Montana."

Hah! Well, we do have cougars / mountain lions

...according to Wikipedia, that is

;)

Re: Wikipedia: Long-Term Abuse

#79

Post by tim333 »

joib wrote: post #10

Some of these are hilarious. Favourite so far is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Chip... > The Chipmunks vandal, also known as the Alvin vandal, adds trivial detail about the Chipmunks fictional musical group's cover versions to song articles, for instance adding a Chipmunks cover version to the Rolling Stones' song "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction". Not only the Chipmunks but the vandal also ta…

The vandal may have a point. The Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(I_Can%27t_Get_No)_Satisfactio... ) is missing any mention of the Chipmunks cover (https://youtu.be/MwmVkQtEzFI?t=9 ). The Chipmunks must be avenged!

Re: Wikipedia: Long-Term Abuse

#80

Post by 93po »

kwertyoowiyop wrote: post #69

It’s sad that Wikipedia volunteers have to put up with such crap. My sincere thank you to all the well-meaning volunteers out there who help improve this wonderful resource.

I feel like for every good wiki mod there's another one that's awful and draconian
Post reply on HN