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

So you've made a mistake and it's public

meta.wikimedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 403 posts

Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public

#31

Post by rootsudo »

offtop5 wrote: post #24
willeh wrote: post #14

This is purely my personal opinion, but the wikipedia community seems like one of the most toxic communities on the web. The people contributing to WP - the editors - seem more concerned with coming up with Kafka-esque processes to introduce to the community than making the actual work of making an encyclopaedia. Perhaps the only area where editors are as zealous they are about creating obscure processes, is in polic…

Considering Reddit and 4Chan are things, Wikipedia is far from being the most toxic . Maybe the most elitist

Both sides on the spectrum are on the same thing.

Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public

#32

Post by zo1 »

offtop5 wrote: post #24
willeh wrote: post #14

This is purely my personal opinion, but the wikipedia community seems like one of the most toxic communities on the web. The people contributing to WP - the editors - seem more concerned with coming up with Kafka-esque processes to introduce to the community than making the actual work of making an encyclopaedia. Perhaps the only area where editors are as zealous they are about creating obscure processes, is in polic…

Considering Reddit and 4Chan are things, Wikipedia is far from being the most toxic . Maybe the most elitist

I think the title of most toxic should go to Twitter.

Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public

#33

Post by Swizec »

willeh wrote: post #14

This is purely my personal opinion, but the wikipedia community seems like one of the most toxic communities on the web. The people contributing to WP - the editors - seem more concerned with coming up with Kafka-esque processes to introduce to the community than making the actual work of making an encyclopaedia. Perhaps the only area where editors are as zealous they are about creating obscure processes, is in polic…

> I hope for a new wave of optimistic idealism to swallow up tech again, bringing about a new era of amateurism. But with the professionalisation of even the free software community I have, I must admit, all but given up hope.

This wave exists, we’re just old. Go talk to 16 year olds who are building virtual reality machine learning apps in their bedroom.

Web is no longer the frontier. We’re old and out of touch. The kids no longer hang out with us. Hence you see a lack of youthful idealism.

Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public

#34

Post by viach »

willeh wrote: post #14

This is purely my personal opinion, but the wikipedia community seems like one of the most toxic communities on the web. The people contributing to WP - the editors - seem more concerned with coming up with Kafka-esque processes to introduce to the community than making the actual work of making an encyclopaedia. Perhaps the only area where editors are as zealous they are about creating obscure processes, is in polic…

> coming up with Kafka-esque processes to introduce to the community

Is there an example of public crowdsourced resource of the comparable to Wikipedia size which managed to generate meaningful content without such kind of processes/bureaucracy?

Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public

#35

Post by fakedang »

throwaways885 wrote: post #18
packetlost wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it. It's a cultural thing, and probably partly a manifestation of individualism.

Admitting fault when needed is a core aspect of being a good individual.

Admitting fault is against individualism.

Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public

#36

Post by cactus2093 »

oritsnile wrote: post #10
cbzehner wrote: post #3

If this isn't an ironic commentary on current events...

I'm out of the loop, what current events?

Probably the idea that you can pretend the truth is whatever you say it is, say whatever you want, never admit a mistake, and hundreds of millions of people will still back you up and continue to trust you. As seen by the president of the US ignoring election results, and countless other things done and said by that administration and their allies.

Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public

#37

Post by renewiltord »

willeh wrote: post #14

This is purely my personal opinion, but the wikipedia community seems like one of the most toxic communities on the web. The people contributing to WP - the editors - seem more concerned with coming up with Kafka-esque processes to introduce to the community than making the actual work of making an encyclopaedia. Perhaps the only area where editors are as zealous they are about creating obscure processes, is in polic…

Only been a pleasant place for me. They're very anal about some rules (copyright, for instance) and that's annoying to me sometimes but overall I can't say I've been upset with any contribution experience.

Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public

#39

Post by tmp538394722 »

willeh wrote: post #14

This is purely my personal opinion, but the wikipedia community seems like one of the most toxic communities on the web. The people contributing to WP - the editors - seem more concerned with coming up with Kafka-esque processes to introduce to the community than making the actual work of making an encyclopaedia. Perhaps the only area where editors are as zealous they are about creating obscure processes, is in polic…

> the editors - seem more concerned with coming up with Kafka-esque processes to introduce to the community than making the actual work of making an encyclopaedia.

Yeah, there probably are widespread cultural problems.

Hyperbole aside, I imagine most of “the actual work” (as you say) of maintaining any open source volunteer encyclopedia for decades has got to be the community culture and processes, not any technical artifact.

If you think the work of Wikipedia is “just” the words in articles, well, this is the same mindset of everyone’s favorite debunked critique of early Dropbox.

Re: So you've made a mistake and it's public

#40

Post by leijurv »

willeh wrote: post #14

This is purely my personal opinion, but the wikipedia community seems like one of the most toxic communities on the web. The people contributing to WP - the editors - seem more concerned with coming up with Kafka-esque processes to introduce to the community than making the actual work of making an encyclopaedia. Perhaps the only area where editors are as zealous they are about creating obscure processes, is in polic…

> The people contributing to WP - the editors - seem more concerned with coming up with Kafka-esque processes to introduce to the community than making the actual work of making an encyclopaedia.

I might take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges maybe reload it a few times. What percent of the changes are to policy space? (the article name begins with "Wikipedia:") And what percent are to regular articles / discussion of articles (article name is normal, or begins with "Talk:").

I think you'd be surprised because the vast vast vast majority of edits are to the articles themselves.

> Perhaps the only area where editors are as zealous they are about creating obscure processes, is in policing what content should they should fit into the their volumes.

This is important. I'm not sure if you're referring to notability, or sourcing, but both are critical to making an encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_no... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

Post reply on HN