121–130 of 363 posts
Gave up looking for a clear definition of what a "toxic comment" is. All I found is a statement that they use some score from some tool and link to the tool developer's site so I'm required to sift through the developer's site to understand what the core part of the paper is, or I've missed some other part of the paper because they include so many dense paragraphs of nothing useful informations (as well as a nice pro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He had his own TV show, has multiple published books and a popular podcast. That alone doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for noteworthiness. Some of the sources you used have to be independent . Eg. published biographies written by someone else, an independent TV show about him (not starring him), etc. Otherwise any random social media influencer could be included if they publish their content in various format…
> Otherwise any random social media influencer could be included if they publish their content in various formats. Maybe it's because I'm getting old, but... Why not? I know that's an age old question in Wikipedia, but if people are happy to write and edit articles about their niche of interest... Let them do it, maybe they'll contribute even more to other topics.
Less obscure topics are both easier to verify and more likely to have someone looking at them and going "wait, what, that's not right...".
I have been making small contributions for fifteen or so years. I don’t much feel like doing it anymore after a spurt of bad interactions. About a year ago I created a Wikipedia page for a TV personality and author I enjoy. Spent literal hours on it collecting citations and what have you. Within a couple hours the page was deleted for not being noteworthy. He had his own TV show, has multiple published books and a po…
I had a similar experience a few years ago. I started a new topic and immediately I had some guy marking it for deletion. In the talk page he made various claims, almost all of them nonsensical, apparently with goal of getting me to go away. Eventually, after some fairly harsh replies, he went away, and the pages stand to this day. But it worked, I gave up soon after and haven't contributed since. It's like the exist…
Which brings up the point I was going to make about TFA. If 'toxic' comments are an effective way to reduce the impact of bad editors, then it's not clear that 'toxic' comments have a negative effect on the quality of Wikipedia. They might be improving it.
Here's how they define toxicity (only clearly described in their "Supplementary material"): https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/... Honestly, that's probably the most "measurable" kind of toxicity, but Wikipedia has a much bigger problem with toxicity than that. The whole place is infused with passive-aggression (by policy) and toxic double-standards. IMHO, you have to be deeply weird to be a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> He had his own TV show, has multiple published books and a popular podcast. That alone doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements for noteworthiness. Some of the sources you used have to be independent . Eg. published biographies written by someone else, an independent TV show about him (not starring him), etc. Otherwise any random social media influencer could be included if they publish their content in various format…
> Otherwise any random social media influencer could be included if they publish their content in various formats. Maybe it's because I'm getting old, but... Why not? I know that's an age old question in Wikipedia, but if people are happy to write and edit articles about their niche of interest... Let them do it, maybe they'll contribute even more to other topics.
I don’t contribute to Wikipedia anymore for the obvious reasons. Now there is one person less making sure that the article on Orgon Energy something states that it’s not a concept accepted by science.
My point is the more articles the less likely is it that a community can maintain the information and reach a certain consensus on what would be a neutral view when phrasing the article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And the finances of the foundation, good lord. Please expound? Or a link is fine, too.
Any cursory googling of their finances would show you that they balooned and instead of using said finances to run the website they ask for more millions of dollars to sponsor a bunch of unrelated charities and hire a bunch of executives to manage such use of the funds. I wish someone would hard-fork it already and stick to a promise of strictly sticking to the core job of operating wikipedia the website, with a smal…
Then you can further simplify if you employ expert moderators who have the final say in everything. The infinite size discussions back stage serve no purpose.
I bet people had tons of ideas for other improvements. (think: A distributed system with fancy api's for the robot overlords.)
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]