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

81–89 of 89 posts

Re: Wikipedia: Long-Term Abuse

#81

Post by 93po »

pyuser583 wrote: post #77
kortilla wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

they are, at least, naked

Re: Wikipedia: Long-Term Abuse

#82

Post by abandonliberty »

laverya wrote: post #76
swilliamsio wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality, or original research.

I think wiki clones have more to do with people wanting to run their own advertising.

Re: Wikipedia: Long-Term Abuse

#83

Post by abandonliberty »

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…

How is this behavior suboptimal?

In the end, the article gets the right information. One issue could be that it prevents broad participation.

Russia has also applied aggressive information warfare to Ukrainian pages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azov_Regiment#No,_the_Azo...

Claims that "The Azov Battalion itself declares that the "Azov Movement" indoctrinates its soldiers: "The Ideology bloc explored the struggle of Ukrainian nationalists. "

Actual translation from the cited article: "explored the way Ukrainian nationalists fought. "

Re: Wikipedia: Long-Term Abuse

#84

Post by Gunax »

abandonliberty wrote: post #83
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…

How is this behavior suboptimal? In the end, the article gets the right information. One issue could be that it prevents broad participation. Russia has also applied aggressive information warfare to Ukrainian pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azov_Regiment#No,_the_Azo... Claims that "The Azov Battalion itself declares that the "Azov Movement" indoctrinates its soldiers: "The Ideology bloc explored the strugg…

In general, the system supports perseverance over any sort of ostensible values like veracity or brevity.

I think this is what OP finds frustrating.

There may be a way to get truth in the end, but it's often more work than many people are willing to provide. Especially since most edit wars are so much smaller in attention than something like the Azov Battalion.

Re: Wikipedia: Long-Term Abuse

#85

Post by [deleted] »

photochemsyn wrote: post #74
whoknows2 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

Re: Wikipedia: Long-Term Abuse

#86

Post by laverya »

abandonliberty wrote: post #82
laverya wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality, or original research. I think wiki clones have more to do with people…

Advertising is why people want to run/host wiki clones.

Not having the complete timeline/backstory/abilities/etc of every One Piece character/Pokemon/Simpsons episode is why people want to use wiki clones.

Re: Wikipedia: Long-Term Abuse

#87

Post by DonHopkins »

frereubu wrote: post #43
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…

> Obsessed with inflatable, bursting, popping, and bouncing objects. I wonder how long it took to figure this out.

I mean, who isn't?

Re: Wikipedia: Long-Term Abuse

#88

Post by DonHopkins »

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?

This inspires me to go meta and become a sockpuppet obsessed with sockpuppets!

Here's a weirdo who's got about 150 sock puppets, and is making many more:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by-GH0J4ZV8

Re: Wikipedia: Long-Term Abuse

#89

Post by throwaway29812 »

WaxProlix wrote: post #29
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?

Mountain lions are not lions.

Embarrassing mistake on the name then
Post reply on HN