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

61–70 of 90 posts

Re: Lamest Edit Wars

#61

Post by kelnos »

xupybd wrote: post #39

Recent HN articles on Wikipedia are not helping me to like the edit system. Seeing someone on a crusade to edit other people's work because they don't like a phrase was really distasteful to me. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35838180 Now these edit wars are even more so.

If I were to write something in a Wikipedia article and some bad grammar or word choice slipped in, I'd be thrilled that someone else would correct it for me. Not for me, but for everyone.

It's not like traditional published works don't go through an editing process. Part of the point of that editing process is there to fix language usage issues.

Also I think "because they don't like a phrase" is a bit of an uncharitable description of what they're doing. You may think it's silly or pedantic, but it's not for us to decide (or even pass judgment on) what other people choose to do with their spare time. I'm sure you and I both have hobbies or whatever that others might think are silly wastes of time (like commenting on HN about silly things like this).

Re: Lamest Edit Wars

#62

Post by kelnos »

deafpolygon wrote: post #57
deafpolygon wrote: post #38

> Aeris vs Aerith She'll always be Aeris to me. > Star Trek Into Darkness Well, that depends. If it's a sub-tag, like "Star Trek: " then it's capitalized. Ergo, "Star Trek: Into Darkness". But if it's "Star Trek" going into darkness, then it's lowercase. Anyways, I think it's "Star Trek Into Darkness" (the different font on the official title leads me to believe it is more like "Star Trek: Into Darkness" so it should…

I don't mind being downvoted (or however it's called on HN) but, at least leave a comment as to why.

I didn't vote either way on your comment, but I suspect it's because it's a bit silly to essentially move the edit wars into comment threads here. I'm guessing that wasn't your intent, but I see how it could come off that way.

(Also, please don't complain/ask about downvotes. HN guidelines prohibit it, and for good reason: complaining or asking about downvotes can only at best result in non-interesting meta discussion, and at worst can cause tension and mini flame wars.)

(I agree with you on Aeris, though.)

Re: Lamest Edit Wars

#64

Post by xupybd »

kelnos wrote: post #61
xupybd wrote: post #39

Recent HN articles on Wikipedia are not helping me to like the edit system. Seeing someone on a crusade to edit other people's work because they don't like a phrase was really distasteful to me. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35838180 Now these edit wars are even more so.

If I were to write something in a Wikipedia article and some bad grammar or word choice slipped in, I'd be thrilled that someone else would correct it for me. Not for me, but for everyone. It's not like traditional published works don't go through an editing process. Part of the point of that editing process is there to fix language usage issues. Also I think "because they don't like a phrase" is a bit of an uncharit…

I'm not against them spending time. I'm against their attempt at controlling the use of language. They're not fixing a mistake, they're rewriting according to personal preference. I see this as defacing other people's work.

To me it would be like going into an open source project and changing the tab spacing just because it's not the one you use.

Re: Lamest Edit Wars

#67

Post by iudqnolq »

kelnos wrote: post #61
xupybd wrote: post #39

Recent HN articles on Wikipedia are not helping me to like the edit system. Seeing someone on a crusade to edit other people's work because they don't like a phrase was really distasteful to me. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35838180 Now these edit wars are even more so.

If I were to write something in a Wikipedia article and some bad grammar or word choice slipped in, I'd be thrilled that someone else would correct it for me. Not for me, but for everyone. It's not like traditional published works don't go through an editing process. Part of the point of that editing process is there to fix language usage issues. Also I think "because they don't like a phrase" is a bit of an uncharit…

> You may think it's silly or pedantic, but it's not for us to decide

If we thought it was silly or pedantic you'd be right. But we think it's wrong.

I have no desire to repeat the exhaustive discussion recently on this site about why.

Re: Lamest Edit Wars

#68

Post by slavik81 »

uncletaco wrote: post #59
StrangeATractor wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TBF there's not many nice pictures that could be taken of Birmingham. Half that city is an apocalyptic hellscape.

That isn't true. I grew up there and most of the city is residential neighborhoods surrounding a downtown that has been getting renovated and updated for the past twenty years or so. In terms of particularly photogenic places there are: * Vulcan * The Kirklin Clinic (designed by IM Pei, his first design I believe) * The County Courthouse * 16th Street Baptist Church * Various venues along Birmingham's freedom trail *…

I only briefly visited Alabama, but the Sloss blast furnace was a highlight of my trip. There is a haunting beauty to that place.

Re: Lamest Edit Wars

#69

Post by epolanski »

calgarymicro wrote: post #49
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 t…

> Seems pretty factual to me.

But the instances where this happened during the 80s, Crimean leadership working to split from Ukraine are nowhere to be found.

Now, did they happen? How? That's my point, it's not easy to find anymore, unless one at least remembers the exact page and can scroll the history to the point this information was still present.

I remember reading them about those in February 2014 when I wanted to understand what was happening better, and I remember myself forming the opinion that maybe Crimeans didn't really want to be part of Ukraine from already quite some time.

But if a user reads it now, the overall narrative is much milder. Another person may form a different opinion.

Thus my point that edit wars can influence lots of people thinking.

Re: Lamest Edit Wars

#70

Post by epolanski »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #35
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…

The best place to find alternate views is on the Talk page of any controversial article. You can usually judge the bias of an article by reading the discussion on its Talk page (and making sure to view the archives).

This is actually a great suggestion I never thought about, but most users will never read it and assume the michael scott way.
Post reply on HN