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

How paid Wikipedia editors squeeze you dry

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 106 posts

Re: How paid Wikipedia editors squeeze you dry

#81

Post by carlosjobim »

quartesixte wrote: post #14
idiotsecant wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you and I just had the singular luck to exist at a time where computers were for weirdos, deviants, and dreamers. The internet was full of people who had naive ideas of what it would be used for and built beautiful and horrible things but they were built largely on ideology, not the banal mediocre lukewarm lawful neutral selfish tribal beige tyranny of the rest of the world. The technology is mature enough now th…

Is there anywhere new for us to go? Or must we wait for some new leap forward still?

Be the change you want to see. Create quality content.

Re: How paid Wikipedia editors squeeze you dry

#82

Post by palmfacehn »

denton-scratch wrote: post #61
gurchik wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Today correcting a typo might trigger a full-time editor to defend his turf. Even asking questions about an uncited assertion on a talk page can be labeled as disruptive. This doesn't align with my experience. From what I've seen, the consensus is that the majority of edits from an IP user are constructive, and they're not reverted simply because they're from an IP user. I've seen data about this[1], but for fun I…

> Some articles require pretty strict criteria to edit 500 edits and a 30-day history are not "pretty strict" - it's the minimum evidence that you have a basic knowledge of the rules. Protected articles are articles that tend to attract wingnuts and agenda-pushers. I keep on coming across editors with a history of (say) 50 minor edits, 100% of which have been quickly reverted for being nonsense or worse. It's a bless…

From an outside perspective these things make Wikipedia editing look more like a game. It is similar to other online communities where points are earned. Profile pages full of merit badges and bureaucratic roles speak for themselves. Sign in to create a character. Level up to unlock achievements. Cast spells by citing rare editorial policy scrolls.

If players enjoy their game, that's fine. However it should be understandable when others don't want to invest in a Wikipedia lifetime achievement award. Malign incentives for paid editing scams occur where the online game overlaps with people's lives and businesses.

Re: How paid Wikipedia editors squeeze you dry

#83

Post by gruez »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #60
idiotsecant wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you and I just had the singular luck to exist at a time where computers were for weirdos, deviants, and dreamers. The internet was full of people who had naive ideas of what it would be used for and built beautiful and horrible things but they were built largely on ideology, not the banal mediocre lukewarm lawful neutral selfish tribal beige tyranny of the rest of the world. The technology is mature enough now th…

No. The technology is different this time. I argue software is a form of literacy, and literacy demands openness. My great hope is the VW emissions scandal where the CTO of the company had to commit lines of code that said “do billion dollar crime”. In a git repo. We can see your crimes now. Wikipedia is this in microcosm - we can see the edits, we can use software to watch for us, everything is in the open and the f…

>My great hope is the VW emissions scandal where the CTO of the company had to commit lines of code that said “do billion dollar crime”.

There's zero chance that the CTO at a company as big as VW is going to be personally committing to code repos.

Re: How paid Wikipedia editors squeeze you dry

#84

Post by almatabata »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #60
idiotsecant wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you and I just had the singular luck to exist at a time where computers were for weirdos, deviants, and dreamers. The internet was full of people who had naive ideas of what it would be used for and built beautiful and horrible things but they were built largely on ideology, not the banal mediocre lukewarm lawful neutral selfish tribal beige tyranny of the rest of the world. The technology is mature enough now th…

No. The technology is different this time. I argue software is a form of literacy, and literacy demands openness. My great hope is the VW emissions scandal where the CTO of the company had to commit lines of code that said “do billion dollar crime”. In a git repo. We can see your crimes now. Wikipedia is this in microcosm - we can see the edits, we can use software to watch for us, everything is in the open and the f…

> My great hope is the VW emissions scandal where the CTO of the company had to commit lines of code that said “do billion dollar crime”.

We know that VW did not write the code. It was the supplier Bosch that did it. VW simply activated a feature through configuration.

Re: How paid Wikipedia editors squeeze you dry

#85

Post by ProllyInfamous »

precompute wrote: post #55

I, in my naivete, after reading the title, thought wikipedia had started paying long-term editors for their work. Apparently not. I guess $250MM isn't enough to pay the people that maintain the website.

>I guess $250MM isn't enough to pay the people that maintain the website.

We do this not because it's easy, but because we can.

—A 20-Year Wikipedian

Re: How paid Wikipedia editors squeeze you dry

#88

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

jokoon wrote: post #73

I don't understand why some people like to criticize the reputation of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not perfect, but their process is quite mature and robust. I even read people saying wikipedia is politicized.

I'm convinced it's attacked by bad-actors because there are few sites that respect the user as much as Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia

Re: How paid Wikipedia editors squeeze you dry

#89

Post by denton-scratch »

palmfacehn wrote: post #82
denton-scratch wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some articles require pretty strict criteria to edit 500 edits and a 30-day history are not "pretty strict" - it's the minimum evidence that you have a basic knowledge of the rules. Protected articles are articles that tend to attract wingnuts and agenda-pushers. I keep on coming across editors with a history of (say) 50 minor edits, 100% of which have been quickly reverted for being nonsense or worse. It's a bless…

From an outside perspective these things make Wikipedia editing look more like a game. It is similar to other online communities where points are earned. Profile pages full of merit badges and bureaucratic roles speak for themselves. Sign in to create a character. Level up to unlock achievements. Cast spells by citing rare editorial policy scrolls. If players enjoy their game, that's fine. However it should be unders…

I agree with your complaint about merit badges; I think they signify nothing more than that you have allies among Wikipedia editors. Since editing Wikipedia should be non-partisan, advertising that you have allies suggests that you're a suspect editor.

But I've been editing WP since about 2004. I have no merit badges, and no admin privileges. I have no allies. I just want to improve the encyclopaedia.

Re: How paid Wikipedia editors squeeze you dry

#90

Post by denton-scratch »

charcircuit wrote: post #66
denton-scratch wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can't correct misinformation yourself Huh? Do you mean "you can't correct misinformation about yourself? Who do you think is allowed to correct misinformation?

>Who do you think is allowed to correct misinformation? I don't know but you can't simply delete it yourself as technically that information did come from a reliable source. I figure you have to counter it by finding another published work that is a reliable source. Even then people have agendas they want to push, so in the end your correction may just be reverted.

> you can't simply delete it yourself

It still sounds as if you're thinking of an article about yourself. You aren't supposed to edit an article about yourself, that's true. The proper course is to post to the article's talk page, specifying the change you want made, and asking for some other editor to make the change.

If the "misinformation" was from a RS, then you're right: to reverse it, you need your own RS that contradicts the misinformation, and is better than the original. But if the information/misinformation is in an article about a living person, and the sourcing is contested, then it should be removed. Everything in a BLP article is supposed to be reliably sourced.

FWIW, I think this rule has unfortunate consequences; articles about living people tend to be insipid, and fail to mention well-known controversies about their subject. That is, I think Wikipedia is a poor resource for information about living people.

Post reply on HN