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

Lamest Edit Wars

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 90 posts

Re: Lamest Edit Wars

#41

Post by sashank_1509 »

yellowapple wrote: post #28
doesnt_know wrote: post #18

> Various supporters of the US Libertarian party (founded in 1971) argue that they own the meaning of the word "libertarian", that placing it next to "socialism" is a contradiction in terms, and hence that libertarian socialism (described circa 1850) cannot possibly have existed. An edit war and request-for-deletion war ensues. That doesn't sound very libertarian of them.

I've been permanently banned from "the" libertarian subreddit specifically for suggesting that libertarian socialism is a thing that exists. It's almost as if their cries about things not being " real libertarianism" is and always has been good ol' gaslighting and projection.

What does libertarian socialism mean? I guess you mean to say, the means of production can be shared across all workers and still economic activity can be directed by markets?

Re: Lamest Edit Wars

#42

Post by photochemsyn »

The rule for Wikipedia is this: the more obscure the topic, the more reliable the content.

It's because the propaganda monkeys congregate around the topics they want to spin on behalf of their paymasters. It's an amusing propaganda circus as the topics become more politically relevant.

Wikipedia has lots of interesting corners, but only the ones that escape the attention of the paid PR monkey editors. All in all it's just become an utter failure in terms of its original promise.

Re: Lamest Edit Wars

#43

Post by crazygringo »

tobr wrote: post #6

> Was Chopin French, French–Polish, Polish, or Polish–French? An aside, but maybe this wouldn’t be as much of an issue if not every biographic article had to start with “ ( ) is a ”. I never understood why nationality should be considered more important than the reason someone is notable.

But it isn't? It's just the rule that adjectives come before nouns.

But in Spanish or French it would be reversed since adjectives come after the noun, e.g. a .

Re: Lamest Edit Wars

#44

Post by H8crilA »

duskwuff wrote: post #16
jamestimmins wrote: post #7

It's striking how many of these are arguments over what nationality to ascribe to someone born in X, whose parents are from Y, but now lives in Z. I'm surprised Wikipedia doesn't have a formal scheme for referencing what is apparently a common source of contention.

It gets extra-spicy when editors start debating what nationality a person was, using names of countries which didn't even exist when the subject of the article was alive (e.g. people born in Central/Eastern Europe before WWI).

Or like when someone says they are from Punjab.

Re: Lamest Edit Wars

#45

Post by Anthony-G »

doesnt_know wrote: post #18

> Various supporters of the US Libertarian party (founded in 1971) argue that they own the meaning of the word "libertarian", that placing it next to "socialism" is a contradiction in terms, and hence that libertarian socialism (described circa 1850) cannot possibly have existed. An edit war and request-for-deletion war ensues. That doesn't sound very libertarian of them.

I’m amazed at the historical ignorance of the US Libertarians. For most of the past two centuries (since Proudhon), “libertarianism” without any qualifiers would refer to the socialist form – and as a synonym for “anarchism”. The politics of the US Libertarian Party has far more in common with classic laissez-faire liberal capitalism than pre-existing anarchism/libertarianism.

Also, unlike the socialists, the individualist and the free-market branches of libertarian thought never had mass support. A mere 4 decades before the US Libertarian party was founded, an explicitly, self-described libertarian communist organisation in just one country had well over a million members (Confederación Nacional del Trabajo).

It’s kind of tragic that American dominance of Internet culture has meant that even a decade ago, younger people that I spoke to were only aware of the more recent capitalist form of libertarianism.

Re: Lamest Edit Wars

#46

Post by anigbrowl »

phillc73 wrote: post #19
jamestimmins wrote: post #7

It's striking how many of these are arguments over what nationality to ascribe to someone born in X, whose parents are from Y, but now lives in Z. I'm surprised Wikipedia doesn't have a formal scheme for referencing what is apparently a common source of contention.

I was born in A, my wife born in B. Along life’s journey I picked up nationality C. We now live in D, where our child was born. Due to the rules of D, our child has nationality C. I can’t wait to join an edit struggle over their Wikipedia page.

I don't think a person who by their own admission picks up nationality like some curio at a flea market is a reliable guide. Voting for preëmptive ban in case their offspring passes the threshold for WP:Notability some time in the future.

Re: Lamest Edit Wars

#48

Post by ipaddr »

zamnos wrote: post #33
leipert wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> place of birth doesn't determine nationality Depends: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli In most of the Americas it actually does.

As anybody with dual citizenship has the passports to prove it, Jus Soli is only half (or a third, for triple citizenship) the story.

Anyone with a dual should give one to a stateless person. The group no one talks about.

Re: Lamest Edit Wars

#49

Post by calgarymicro »

epolanski wrote: post #31

Wikipedia is massively raging in edit wars. Before 2014's Russian aggression towards Ukraine, several Crimea-related pages pointed out (with citations) that Crimea tried to split from Ukraine twice already during soviet times, but this whole narrative was steadily rewritten after 2014. Considering how many people rely on Wikipedia to get "facts", this has always struck me at how much history rewriting can happen and…

I don't know what the second one is supposed to be, but at least one instance is featured on the History of Crimea page,[0] which leads to a fairly detailed page about the related referendum.[1] Seems pretty factual to me.

> With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Ukrainian independence the majority ethnic Russian Crimean peninsula was reorganized as the Republic of Crimea,[54][55] after a 1991 referendum with the Crimean authorities pushing for more independence from Ukraine and closer links with Russia. In 1995, the Republic was forcibly abolished by Ukraine with the Autonomous Republic of Crimea established firmly under Ukrainian authority.[56]

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Crimea#Post-Soviet_...

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Crimean_sovereignty_refer...

Re: Lamest Edit Wars

#50

Post by elliottkember »

I love it. What fun. I love the discourse and I love the edit wars.

Everybody here seems to be talking about how disappointing this is. But this is exactly what Wikipedia is - this is Wikipedia working as intended.

This article calls these lame but then relishes them one by one. There’s something quite precious about this.

Post reply on HN