Wikipedia Adds "WikiLove" For Newbie Editors

mikejuk writes "Wikipedia has a cunning plan to make wikipedians nicer to each other — its all about WikiLove. They can click on the Love button to make each other feel good about contributing anything from an article to an edit. The idea is that this will encourage newbie editors to stay and contribute rather than slink away into the rest of the web because their contributions get deleted and derided. Perhaps all we need for world peace is a big enough love button."

Comments

Government Sponsored?

[TheRaven64]

Is this backed by the Ministry of Love?

Re:Government Sponsored?

[tripleevenfall]

I'm waiting for the snickering to start on pushing people's love button to make them feel good.

Re:Government Sponsored?

[edumacator]

I wish slashdot had a +1 love button.

Re:Government Sponsored?

[Kamiza Ikioi]

/. has a love button, but nobody wants to touch it.

Re:Government Sponsored?

[cbiltcliffe]

....Ministry of Love?

That would be "Minilove" Which sounds doubleplus close to Wikilove....

Re:Government Sponsored?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Wikilove isn't; but WikiTrue, whose agents spend their days marking ideologically problematic material with a "citation needed", is.

Re:Government Sponsored?

[L4t3r4lu5]

You ruined a perfectly good opportunity for a "That's what she said!" joke. Well done, sour puss. -1 Dislike X-(

Re:Government Sponsored?

[PopeRatzo]

I'm waiting ... to start on pushing people's love button to make them feel good.

My wife's waiting for the same thing.

Hell will freeze over first. But I have told her that playing Xbox is training my hands. She bought it, but is growing suspicious.

Re:Government Sponsored?

[wisty]

No, you just want to think that nobody wants to touch it.

That's how you are able to sleep at night.

Re:Government Sponsored?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish slashdot had a +1 love button.

On Slashdot? Pfft. You'd be lucky to get a "+1 Hate" button, assuming everyone isn't too busy bitching about the Javascript again inbetween desperate attempts to rationalize downloading movies for free.

Re:Government Sponsored?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cowboy Neal's belly button?

'because their contributions get deleted'

[Anonymous Coward]

*open hood of car*
>because their contributions get deleted and derided
Well, now, there's ya problem.

Wikipedia is communism

[tepples]

No, it's backed by the Ministry of Communism. When people post comments on Slashdot about inability to work with "established in-groups" on Wikipedia, it usually sounds to me like the in-group is violating the policy against acting like the owner of an article. The policy states that Wikipedia articles are owned in common, not as the "property" of specific cliques.

Re:Wikipedia is communism

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I eagerly await an explanation of how a private-sector NGO with a set of voluntary participants setting whatever terms and conditions of use they wish to for their own sites and servers represents "Communism", much less a "Ministry"...

Re:Wikipedia is communism

[SteveFoerster]

Not to mention that information isn't property, so "ownership" in this sense is referring to responsibility, not to the right of exclusive use.

Re:Wikipedia is communism

[TheRaven64]

His point is that wikipedia articles should (according to the rules) be owned collectively, rather than by individuals, which is pretty core to the collectivist ideology. Collectivism and communism are closely related.

Re:Wikipedia is communism

[Anonymous Coward]

The policy states that Wikipedia articles are owned in common, not as the "property" of specific cliques.

Wikipedia policy seems to say just about everything, including 'but ignore the policies anyway' and 'policies are what we actually do, not what's written down somehwere so if what's actually done is to block you for being a newb then that's the policy'.

Re:Wikipedia is communism

[AmiMoJo]

Did you ever play D&D? Remember the guy who memorised every little rule and regulation and then turned them to his advantage? That's the average Wikipedia troll. No matter what you do they will be able to cite a rule saying you are wrong.

It was quite a clever move really. Work behind the scenes to get the rules changed in their favour, and all the while casual editors are too busy improving articles to notice. Then once the trap is sprung go on a mass delete/revert frenzy and divvy the world up into hundreds of tiny kingdoms.

Re:Wikipedia is communism

[sorak]

His point is that wikipedia articles should (according to the rules) be owned collectively, rather than by individuals, which is pretty core to the collectivist ideology. Collectivism and communism are closely related.

Yes, but this is a loaded word. It's a little like describing antivirus software as "ethnic cleansing for data".

Re:Wikipedia is communism

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit, you fucking retard!
If Wikipedia is "communism", then the USA is communism too.

It's the law of the jungle, with a establishment that always has the last word, and lives in its own delusion of being the only one, whose perception of reality is true. Despite most of them being utter retards like you. They only are so full of themselves. Not that they actually have competence.

The whole site is built on a load of delusions from socially conditioned idiots living in teeny-tiny mental boxes.
I studied it. Extensively. And it is actually physically impossible for Wikipedia to ever "work" they way they think it's supposed to work.
Resource dynamics between life-forms just don't work that way. Ever.
(That's also why democracy, communism, socialism, etc, which all have this fallacy at their base, never work, except in the delusional world of the common cattle.)

I tell you what

[trifish]

I stopped editing Wikipedia a couple of years ago and haven't gone back. Why? Because the members of the established mafia occupying the articles appeared to have much much more time than me to keep reverting or discussing (i.e. repeating the arguments over and over ad nauseam) than me.

Any change I made was immediately (usually within 1-10 minutes) reverted. I have been living my life and working, while they have apparently been just squatting "their" articles. I don't feel sorry for them, however.

Re:I tell you what

[Twinbee]

What was the topic in question? And a link to the "Discuss" arguments? I ask because it's always possible to advertise to get other people involved, perhaps people more knowledgeable than either of you. With more people (and more expert people), a middle-ground consensus is more likely to established.

Re:I tell you what

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you see? That's exactly the mob mentality that rules Wikipedia, and increasingly, the net in general.

Re:I tell you what

[elrous0]

With more people (and more expert people)

Those two are NOT the same thing. Having a bunch of people editing doesn't help if the few experts get drowned out by the multitude of ignorant assholes who just sit around all day reverting articles.

Re:I tell you what

[Bieeanda]

Wanna know what's worse? The guy probably just had a reversion script running.

Re:I tell you what

[cbiltcliffe]

What's wrong with mob mentality on the Internet?

I mean, look at how swimmingly it works in real life. There's Vancouv....err....well, there's Tripoli....errr...wait....no..there's Belfast...no...dammit...there's got to be....ok...how about Lebanon?

Ahh, fuck it. You're right. Mobs suck. ...

As an aside, is it ironic that I linked to a Wikipedia article about the results of mob mentality when we're talking about mob mentality on Wikipedia?

Re:I tell you what

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why I don't edit or post any information anywhere. People get so smart, arrogant and jump all over you, doesn't matter who is right. I have seen some people go ape nasty on someone while they had no idea what they were talking about.

Re:I tell you what

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that their dedication leads to higher quality articles. I've been able to make several changes without having them reverted, and I must admit that the changes of mine that were reverted, were not of the best quality. Perhaps you should write better articles?

Re:I tell you what

[twocows]

I had a similar experience adding some minor details to a page. I wasn't particularly busy that day, so I quoted enough Wikipedia bureaucracy at them to fill a book and they finally left the details in.

The problem with Wikipedia is just as you say; too many people have their little pet pages and to get anything done you need to throw the book at them. Nobody's going to bother doing that.

Re:I tell you what

[Yvanhoe]

These years, when I look up wikipedia for an article, I often go to the 2007 version (or 2009 if it is too small). It is usually longer, the "removal wars" began around 2008-2009 . Only on recent events do I use the current version.

Re:I tell you what

[Twinbee]

There are many people, myself included, who would step down given someone with better credentials (especially phd level). Meritocracy and all that. Maybe the situation is worse than I think, and a Pagerank system for people would need to be used. It could be abused, but I think it could work well. People could be marked down as well as up, and the strength of that marking would depend on the 'rank' of the person doing the marking.

I'm not sure if the "wisdom of the crowds" theory applies to knowledge, as well as optimization tasks.

Re:I tell you what

[devphaeton]

Same here. I was correcting the BitchX article (it pointed to Bitchx.com as the IRC Client's website, which is a domain squatter. BitchX.org is the real site). Within minutes, it was reverted. I corrected it again with a better description (assuming I wasn't clear enough the first time), same thing. Finally, someone else corrected it, and all history of the battle disappeared.

However, I did look at the history and saw that this has been done several times by several other people, only to get reverted back to the wrong website each time.

The only thing this really does is make me sad though. Wikipedia could be (and sometimes still is) a great resource, but bullshit like this is what ruins it for everyone.

Re:I tell you what

[AmiMoJo]

This is very common on Wikipedia. A good example would be articles on anime that have been released in the west, such as Detective Conan and Card Captor Sakura. In academic works, e.g. a printed encyclopaedia, the original names would be used for the articles. Instead the names of the bastardised versions that the western distributors did are used (Case Closed and Cardcaptors respectively).

Someone figured out a way to troll Wikipedia. Piss off all the fans who are adding useful contributions to the articles. The other common tactic is to delete all the detailed info under the pretence of merging articles together and then claiming that the article is now too long and needs to be cut back drastically. All the effort people put in to documenting characters and events, even the minor ones, is destroyed.

This is one reason why alternative single-subject wikis like Wookiepedia (Star Wars) are gaining popularity. Lengthy and in-depth articles on the most obscure topics, and so far no organised deletion trolls.

Re:I tell you what

[SteveFoerster]

I realize you're referring to deferring to those with genuine expertise, and I respect that and agree, but as an aside, anyone who thinks that a PhD holder necessarily has more merit has never worked for a university. Talk about a sausage factory!

Re:I tell you what

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. It's like a fucking cult.

Re:I tell you what

[SatanicPuppy]

My kingdom for mod points.

Re:I tell you what

[gravis777]

Same issue here. I would try to make simple changes, like change a birthdate on a page. Some obviously had issues, I cannot remember the celebrity off the top of my head, but in the article, her birthdate was stated 10 years later than what was stated in the summery in the side column. A simple visit to numerous fan sites showed that the date in the article was wrong, so I would change it, and provide links to support the change. It would be reverted back usually within a few minutes.

I had a similar issue with our city page. I love in a very small town, and the page on Wikipedia was pretty much full of racial slurs and misinformation, not a single piece of which was linked to. Made several complaints and tried to change the page, but it kept getting reverted, and the responses I got were that the information on the page was accurate.

Re:I tell you what

[Lord Lode]

I often put a comment in the "Comments" section, but don't actually do the edit myself. That gives them the opportunity to discuss about it and make a final decision. And sometimes they've actually taken my comment into account!!

Re:I tell you what

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, weakipedia sucks shit.

Re:I tell you what

[Ihmhi]

Same here, except I'm very against them being so deletion happy. Disk space and bandwidth are cheap. Unless it's a clear violation of the law, there's no reason to delete anything. Instead, stuff gets tagged as "not notable" and is disappeared forever.

I understand wanting to have standards (i.e. the need to cite sources and whatnot), but a simple "This article currently has no sources or citations - find some!" and a hell of a lot more leniency will make Wikipedia suck a lot less.

Some kinda magic karmic meter won't keep people staying around Wikipedia. Getting rid of the assholes and/or the asshole policies is the way to go.

Re:I tell you what

[Anonymous Coward]

of course it isn't an axiom, but I would take bets that most PhDs are more informed in their area of expertise than people without the advanced training. the fact that you wouldn't points to 1) a deep seeded resentment from your own failures and regrets or 2) some anecdotal experiences to the contrary. Neither reflect well upon someone who, apparently, pursues knowledge.

Re:I tell you what

[kyrio]

You are boring.

Re:I tell you what

[Rhaban]

Reducing the number of articles on obscure topics as welle as their length is useful.
I print myself a paper version of wikipedia once a month, and it would really save trees if there weren't so many useless articles.

Re:I tell you what

[siglercm]

The only power those particular editors may have in their lives is their wiki pages. (And, mind you, as with so much in life this phenomenon is all about power. Basically no money is involved, only power.) Upon reflection, I think an appropriate reaction is sorrow.

Re:I tell you what

[Ginger Unicorn]

I'm curious - why do you print out all of wikipedia so frequently? (or at all)

Re:I tell you what

[BenoitRen]

I print myself a paper version of wikipedia once a month, and it would really save trees if there weren't so many useless articles.

I have an even better idea to save trees.

Stop doing that.

Re:I tell you what

[Vintermann]

> I ask because it's always possible to advertise to get other people involved, perhaps people more knowledgeable than either of you.

Oh no, that gets you punished for canvassing. If you're not someone high up, that is. Then your private mutual assistance mailing lists can be published, and nothing will come off it.

What wikipedia needs is a hate button. And liberal application of said button to any and all aspiring wikilawyers.

Re:I tell you what

[sorak]

I am half assuming and half hoping that he/she is being sarcastic about printing Wikipedia. Otherwise, the correct response is "DON'T DO THAT!"

Re:I tell you what

[Vintermann]

> Someone figured out a way to troll Wikipedia. Piss off all the fans who are adding useful contributions to the articles. The other common tactic is to delete all the detailed info under the pretence of merging articles together and then claiming that the article is now too long and needs to be cut back drastically. All the effort people put in to documenting characters and events, even the minor ones, is destroyed.

And the problem is that in Wikipedia, this earns you status. All the old editors who had preservation of useful information as a priority have left, so the only way to gain approval and respect (and be allowed to control some topics of your own) is to engage in such shitty behavior. Ultimately, it's this way because Jimbo wants it to be: He doesn't want any sort of fan information on wikipedia, because he wants to move as much as possible over to his for-profit project Wikia.

Re:I tell you what

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the Wikia wiki-farm format (including Wookiepedia) has created a situation where there is an obvious wiki for an obscure Star Wars character or model of Transformers toy, but nowhere to put detailed information on, say, a small town in the Midwest. The Internet, and wikis in particular, could very easily create an incredibly in-depth encyclopedia on every topic (possibly spread across multiple sites, like with Wikia) but this is being held back by the fact that every topic needs to have its own wiki if it wants to be in depth, because Wikipedia editors hate detail for some reason (I've seen articles get deleted just for being too long/informative), and nobody's going to make Midwestern Town Wiki.

What we need is a new fork: Everything Wiki, where most of the rules of Wikipedia apply but:

1) Any article can be created and kept as long as the subject exists, either as an entity or a concept. Notability is irrelevant.

2) Any correct and relevant information can be included in an article, period. Joe Biden's favorite brand of mayonnaise? Sure, why not.

The only problem is that the wiki wouldn't get any content, because Wikipedia has all the momentum.

Re:I tell you what

[Anonymous Coward]

Advertising in the way you are recommending is specifically against wikipedia policy and will get you banned.

Re:I tell you what

[Ken_g6]

I find this story very surprising. I have thousands of Wikipedia edits, and have had an edit with a valid link reverted only once. The reason was not that the link was invalid, but that linking to song lyrics is apparently "contributory copyright infringement".

90% of the time, if you provide a good reference (e.g. from an online news article), your edit can't be challenged, and if changed will be reverted to your version. 9% of the time a different, contrasting view may be added, with a different link; but your version should still be there as well.

Re:I tell you what

[The Archon V2.0]

I have an even better idea to save trees. Stop doing that.

If the guy is using paper made out of old growth instead of farmed trees, then he's already a Captain Planet villain, so arguing with him is rather pointless.

Re:I tell you what

[Anonymous Coward]

The single-subject wikis are almost always on Jimbo Wales's commercial offshoot of Wikipedia. He makes money on page-views on those wikis. Around the time that Jimbo created his commercial offshoot, people at the top started agitating for "fan cruft" to be shoved off onto that commercial offshoot.

Funny, that.

Re:I tell you what

[SydShamino]

Yeah, that's how I make changes to Encyclopedia Britannica, too!

Re:I tell you what

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could use the data dumps instead of being a moron. I assume you're kidding, however.

Re:I tell you what

[jojoba_oil]

There are many people, myself included, who would step down given someone with better credentials (especially phd level). Meritocracy and all that. Maybe the situation is worse than I think, and a Pagerank system for people would need to be used. It could be abused, but I think it could work well. People could be marked down as well as up, and the strength of that marking would depend on the 'rank' of the person doing the marking.

I'm not sure if the "wisdom of the crowds" theory applies to knowledge, as well as optimization tasks.

You must not have been around when the scandal about "Essjay" came out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essjay_controversy

Be sure to note the part where a kid with self-proclaimed PhD in Theology used his false credentials in arguments over content... If you start asking people to PeopleRank each other, you'll just get a popularity contest--not a measure of knowledge.

Bad editors

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a plan to get rid of editors who don't want someone else's changes their THEIR article, reasonable or not?

Love the big enough love button idea

[youn]

Maybe someone can implement it like they are implementing the 10,000 year clock :)

Re:Love the big enough love button idea

[Anonymous Coward]

if you love everything, you love nothing. it's all about the contrast.

Love Button?

[Kiaser Zohsay]

Perhaps all we need for world peace is a big enough love button.

That's what SHE said!

Too much happiness

[Anonymous Coward]

Much like the "like" button on Facebook, "love" will feel very awkward for things that are correct and worthwhile, but depressing. Say, amended figures for genocides.

Re:Too much happiness

[surgen]

It does capture the most important aspect of the Facebook like button, its a lightweight operation for the person doing the liking. As a facebook "advertiser", I got the email about the change from "become a fan" to "like", their entire justification to do so was that it would be easier for the user to commit to doing. Yes, love will feel awkward, but it will get significantly more use than actually going onto someones userpage to write some sort of thank-you.

Like, +1, now WikiLove

[rbrausse]

I don't get the idea behind such features - where are dislike, -1, WikiHate?

Those one-click-feelgood buttons are not even a valid substitute for real feedback...

Re:Like, +1, now WikiLove

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are we even entertaining the idea that a so-called "encyclopedia" should even HAVE such options? Why do facts and information have to be subject to the cult of personality and whether or not people "like" the idea or not?

Re:Like, +1, now WikiLove

[AmiMoJo]

I hope they do charts for the most loved articles. My money goes on:

1. Hitler
2. Jesus
3. Natalie Portman

Re:Like, +1, now WikiLove

[Edgewize]

The point isn't to provide critical or useful feedback. The point is to provide positive reinforcement and emotion. Most human beings, believe it or not, enjoy feelings of acceptance and appreciation and despise criticism. You're welcome to tell them to go home until they grow a thicker skin, but then all you've got left is a bunch of nerds and engineers trying to maintain articles about 15th century art.

Re:Like, +1, now WikiLove

[DerekLyons]

Because Wikipedia: The Encyclopedia has long since been replaced with Wikipedia: The Role Playing Game.

Re:Like, +1, now WikiLove

[Ruke]

That feature is called "revert." I hear it's rather popular right now.

Re:Like, +1, now WikiLove

[Chris Mattern]

Why do facts and information have to be subject to the cult of personality and whether or not people "like" the idea or not?

Welcome to the human race. I take it this your first time visiting?

next.

[leuk_he]

Then get rid of editors with more than 10 reverts.
Then get rid of editors who create articles that are not relevant.
Then get rid of editors who did not get enough wiki love points.

In the end there will be only one! and we will have to get rid of him too, because nobody read his article.

wikipedia is a social experiment after all, the fact that is happens to be a something like e encyclopedia as weel is a nice side effect.

PS, if you mod as funny, we will have to get rid of you as well ;)

Re:What We Need For World Peace

[Anonymous Coward]

No: Just nuke all these idiots who propose to nuke anything to get World Peace.

...

Stack overflow

Millions of little fiefdoms

[Anonymous Coward]

I discovered recently just how petty and arrogant some Wikipedia contributors are. I attempted to clean up an article, nothing major, just fixing some awkward sentences that were poorly worded, confusing, or grammatically incorrect. Less than half an hour later it was changed back and I received a message from the author of the parts I corrected telling me that it was "his" article and that the sections I fixed were already perfect and needed no changes. I made my case for keeping my edits, explained that I made the article read better without changing any facts, and then changed them back. The next message I got was an angry post insulting me personally, and telling me that there was no way I was more of an expert on the subject ("or the English language" he actually said that) than he was. This is probably one of the worst examples but it can't be the only one.

You can't make people like that "love" each other. They are protective, bitter, autists who spend all day refreshing "their" articles and reverting the edits of anyone who attempts to change them.

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms

[Anonymous Coward]

They...spend all day refreshing "their" articles and reverting the edits of anyone who attempts to change them.

I can't imagine this kind of selfish, closed-minded behavior in the world today. I mean, refreshing MANUALLY? Who has time for that anymore? You should at least be able to set up an email notification to streamline your selfishness.

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a similar experience. I added important new information to an article about the subject I am an expert on (15+ years professional experience) which took me a couple of hours to write and cite. All additions were deleted, reverted and gutted within 24 hours, with no sane explanation. I did not bother to contest or debate this - my time is better spent where it's appreciated.

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms

[citking]

You're not the only one. Wikipedia editors and contributors are a self-appointed elite bunch who don't care about anything other than the changes/creations they've made. It's an elite world and outsiders aren't allowed (but their money is certainly welcome!)

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms

[twistedsymphony]

That pretty much mirrors my experience. I honestly think what Wikipedia needs most is a method to stop that kind of behavior. Maybe only allow people to make up to 10 revisions on an article per year (including reverts). That would prevent people from "camping", allow others to contribute, and encourage people to make small contributions to numerous articles instead of major contributions to a select few articles. It would also encourage people to really think about the changes they're making before pushing through the update.

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms

[Anonymous Coward]

How come for every Wikipedia abuse story there are never any reference links to the disputed changes? It's like you people only comprehend one POV in an argument: yours.

And no, I've never edited Wikipedia. Anything but article rewrites are largely pointless because the information is eventually lost anyway.

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms

[AmiMoJo]

Sometimes you can get your edits to stick by asking a neutral moderator to check them and make a decision. Then it is 50/50 if the moderator is an asshat or not but it is worth a try just to see the steam shooting from the ears of the articles rightful "owner". If you are really lucky the original author might give up on Wikipedia entirely and you can feel like you achieved something worthwhile.

Oh yes, and don't forget that you can't remove stuff on your personal page permanently. Even if you delete it, it remains in the history. Make sure you put copious links to the original authors asshattery on his page (or permanent record as I like to call it). Encourages them to stop editing Wikipedia.

Harsh but this is the only way we have any hope of reclaiming it.

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms

[basscomm]

Okay, how about this: A while back, I was browsing the entry for Pibb Xtra and found a spelling error (the author confused "access" and "assess", which I corrected, only to have it immediately reverted. I figured it was an error, so I re-fixed it, only to be accused of vandalism (they thought I was writing "asses"). That was the last time I tried to edit anything on that site.

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms

[Just Some Guy]

Because it's like saying "the sun will come up tomorrow [citation needed]". The citation is that damn near everyone has experienced it first-hand.

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms

[kyrio]

Go look at the history of the circumcision page. You will notice one guy who had his dick mutilated writing the article out to be pro circumcision. This may have changed in the last year or two, or it could be the same shit as the past. There have been many discussions over this article, every year. He brings his friends in to back up his side of the argument (mods and admins we well), so nothing would come of the discussions.

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you please provide a link to this article you are referring to?

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms

[geniice]

Citation needed

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem that will immediatly follow is how to stop all the sockpuppet accounts.

And if they make it so that users have to be registered for say... 6 months before they can edit or something, that just means there will be 6 months of few revisions, followed by a sudden swarm of them as all the sockpuppets become active.

This is a far deeper problem that can't be so easily fixed.

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you're a shill. Pure and simple.

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms

[siglercm]

Please mod parent up; practical and useful suggestions.

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you post a link to the article? I would really like to see what drew such ire from someone. Also, enough Slashdotters may be able to get your good edits to stick via mass edit.

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms

[Chris Mattern]

Unenforceable. The article camper will just make himself 20 accounts, or however many he needs, to keep reverting the changes to "his" article.

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms

[Anonymous Coward]

So you found a petty arrogant moron. Happens everywhere. You can have hundreds or thousands of people in the same place without having some of them. By the way, he was violating a buch of rules, if he was behaving as if the article was his property. Enough, I think, to be banned from Wikipedia for a long, long time. Pity he wasn't being watched by an admin.

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms

[jojoba_oil]

Outsiders' money is more than welcome. Wikipedia begs for it, and they try to use nice wording to veil that fact. I can't remember how many different Wikia-associated people had their sad/worried face put on a banner with "A personal appeal from ______, Wikipedia editor/founder/elitest/contributor". Probably not surprising at all, but it was always an economic appeal--not a personal appeal.

Further, tt was really annoying that clicking the "x" to hide the banner didn't persist; it was back with every page load. What, then, was the point of having the ability to hide it at all?

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms

[gottabeme]

So what you're saying is that Wikipedia is fundamentally broken?

Sounds about right to me.

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms

[gottabeme]

You mean he was circumcised, like billions of other people?

Your prejudice is obvious--you should recuse yourself from that topic, if you haven't already.

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a straight up retard.

Re:What We Need For World Peace

[rbrausse]

Stack overflow

imo the correct mem would be CARRIER LOST...

Encouragement

[elrous0]

If you want to really encourage newbies, you need to get rid of the anal-retentive assholes with the "Now that I'm at the party, no one else is invited" attitudes. Every time I've tried to add a quality edit over there, it inevitably got removed for no good reason. And most of the time it's removed by an editor whose sole contribution to Wikipedia seemed to be removing edits. I finally just gave up trying (I suspect I'm hardly alone).

Re:Encouragement

[nyctopterus]

You know, everyone on slashdot keeps saying stuff like this, but in my corner of the Wikipedia (palaeontology), most pages are under-edited. If anyone comes along and adds relevant, cited information, the edits are most certainly kept. If you cite a real paper that you've read and understood, we'll be pressing that love button!

There is a lot of reverting, but most of it is reverting popular misconceptions that have no citation, or ideologically driven edits (usually creationists, again with no citations).

Is this because people are going and trying to edit the Mohammed or Jesus pages or something? Because I really don't get what you're all on about. Maybe my interests are esoteric, but I've never had a real problem getting edits to stick on any subject, even on controversial fringe topics like cryptozoology.

Re:Encouragement

[Anonymous Coward]

omg... palaeontology? really? i am sure creationists will be more than happy to lend a hand...

Re:Encouragement

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Finnigan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bernard_Finnigan They finally caved into reason though with that recent example, bit late now though.

Re:Encouragement

[nyctopterus]

So you're editing a page about a politician involved in child pornography charges with the complication of a legal embargo, and you're bitching that there was a long debate about it that went your way eventually? I'm shocked! SHOCKED I tells you! Cabals everywhere!

Re:Encouragement

[TheRaven64]

Palaeontology is probably quite unusual, in that I expect that there's a fairly large overlap between the set of people that know about palaeontology and the set of people that think that they know about palaeontology. In fields where there is less of an overlap, there is more of a problem.

Re:Encouragement

[Anonymous Coward]

They reverted legitimate edits which were perfectly in the rules for ages though because they could, that's the problem.

Re:Encouragement

[nyctopterus]

I don't actually think that's the case. Plenty of religiously motivated people, as well as young people with a newly found passion for dinosaurs, tend to massively overestimate the extent of their knowledge. They come and go, and probably complain that I'm part of the 'cabal', but the truth is that most of these edits are factually wrong, and nearly never have appropriate citations.

I don't really know what's going on, but I suspect that a lot of the complainers on Slashdot are smart people that are used to having their opinion accepted, and the kind of debate that generally goes on Wikipedia's controversial pages frustrates them.

Re:Encouragement

[drb226]

There is a lot of reverting, but most of it is reverting popular misconceptions that have no citation, or ideologically driven edits (usually creationists, again with no citations).

85% of slashdotters complaining about how their edits got reverted fall into this category.

Re:Encouragement

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a lot of reverting, but most of it is reverting popular misconceptions that have no citation, or ideologically driven edits (usually creationists, again with no citations).

85% of slashdotters complaining about how their edits got reverted fall into this category.

[citation needed]

Please read more Slashdot. Alternatively I suggest you take a basic course in statistics or perhaps English comprehension.

How soon

[realinvalidname]

until someone marks the "Love button" for speedy deletion?

Gave up on Wikipedia long ago

[citking]

With the problems I've had in the past I don't know if this is going to be nearly enough. Wikipedia's problems lies in the fact that many, if not most, of their long-time editors consider themselves the end-all be-all of Wikipedia. I've contributed to several pages, cited properly, and still get reverted because someone disagrees with the page for reasons other than factual accuracy. For example, when editing an article about Vince Lombardi and citing sources the changes were reverted for no given reason. When I asked why I was reverted I was not given a reasonable answer (and was trolled in the process). So I stopped contributing. I'm now content to let the self-appointed elites run the site.

That's the other reason I will never give a red cent to Wikipedia. So long as the Wikipedia mafia of editors continue to run things the way that they do I think the site will suffer and eventually wither out as it's last gasp of neutrality and openness disappear behind the power-hungry editors who run the site the way that they want to run it. If Jimmy wants Wikipedia to succeed he'll start with the cadre of idiots who currently run the place.

Re:Gave up on Wikipedia long ago

[christurkel]

The source of the problem is Wales himself. He lets this go on. He bends and ignores rules because he can get away with it. He white washes history to make it seem like he is the sole founder of Wikipedia. The arrogance flows from him. Get rid of Wales and the rest will follow suit.

Re:Gave up on Wikipedia long ago

[m0n0RAIL]

I feel like going through all the slashdot comments like this that basically say "I made a great edit and it was reverted for no reason" and adding [citation needed] to them, because not a single one of you has provided a link to your allegedly great edit. Maybe you're just not as good an author as you think you are? Please prove me wrong with a link.

Re:Gave up on Wikipedia long ago

[Blakey Rat]

Cites or not, the fact that there's so many of those little stories makes it a problem for Wikipedia. If not a problem related to the editing, definitely a perception problem.

Say you are thinking about editing Wikipedia. Now you come to this thread (or any other recent thread about Wikipedia). Do you still want to edit? Probably not.

That is Wikipedia's problem, whether or not you want to admit to it, whether or not the thread has "proper citations." Fix it.

Stop passing the buck and fix it.

Re:Gave up on Wikipedia long ago

[geniice]

No one by the name of "citking" has ever edited the Vince Lombardi article. Care to link to your edits?

Re:Gave up on Wikipedia long ago

[m0n0RAIL]

Say you are thinking about editing Wikipedia. Now you come to this thread (or any other recent thread about Wikipedia). Do you still want to edit?

Yes. This wouldn't change my opinion of Wikipedia, rather this would make me think that a lot of slashdot posters have an over-inflated view of their own writing abilities.

Except for me, of course. [citation needed]

Re:Gave up on Wikipedia long ago

[citking]

I would love to send you a link to a story I edited but it got reverted (and this was a while back...I don't know how far Wikipedia keeps revert histories nor can I look right now). Thanks for trolling though.

Re:Gave up on Wikipedia long ago

[citking]

It was well over four years ago. Is that history still available?

Re:Gave up on Wikipedia long ago

[geniice]

Sure. History goes all the way back to this edit in 2001:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vince_Lombardi&oldid=293638

Re:Gave up on Wikipedia long ago

[citking]

My guess was that this was done under my IP address (before I had my account and before one was required to edit). I'm not sure I can find the exact edit.

All the edit was was to list him as the coach of the year after the First Superbowl *I think*. It was some fact like that, a fact with a source, and it was reverted. Whether or not I can find the exact edit/revert the fact of the matter stands that many people, including myself, have had issues with vengeful editors. Hell, I bet I could go into 5 articles with a misspelling, correct the misspelling, and at least 1 will get reverted. I'm at work now or else I would try this as a social experiment.

Re:Gave up on Wikipedia long ago

[saibot834]

Revision history is kept forever. Just click on "View history" on an article and provide us with the diff link ("prev"). Thanks.

Re:Gave up on Wikipedia long ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia keeps edit/revert history forever, and by forever I mean "all the way until the earliest edits, back in 2004".

So I believe you could still find it. It'll take a lot of digging though.

Re:PONIES!!!!!

[cbiltcliffe]

OMG!!! PONIES!!!!!!

Fixed that for you.

<random grumbling about noobz.>

The Auto-Delete Bots Really Bothered Me

[eldavojohn]

Three years ago or so I decided to try to upload clips to classic rock songs that I had on CD that had their own pages on Wikipedia. They were constantly deleted. If a song had a page, I figured it'd be notable enough to have a fair use clip of it and so for about twenty songs I carefully selected the best 10% of the song (or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter) and turned it into the lowest quality ogg in Audacity. Two bots were particularly brutal (DASHBot and FileBot). Months later someone would seemingly voluntarily orphan the fair use examples I had uploaded and one by one they disappeared. Well screw that, I'm done investing my time into something that just gets deleted by a bot whose owner does not respond when I comment on their talk page asking for help and justification. It'd be one thing if someone would explain to me what I'm doing wrong but it appears what I'm doing wrong is volunteering my time to Wikipedia in the first place. It's not like my examples are being improved or adjusted -- just deleted. So forget it, I have better projects to invest my time in.

WIKIFUCKYOU

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a 3TB harddrive... that is more love for knowledge than wikipedia will ever have.

I want a "hate" button

[1u3hr]

I personally would use a "FUCK YOU, YOU MORON" button a lot more often in Wikipedia than a "Have a kitten" button. Maybe it's the articles I edit attract more assholes (yes, I'm aware of the implication of that).

Re:What We Need For World Peace

[cbiltcliffe]

1. Nuke Israel.
2. Nuke Washington, D.C.

That is all.

Yeah. Because then we'd only have Somali pirates, Pakistan/India, most of the Middle East, China/Tibet, etc.etc.

If your solution to obtain world peace involves nuking anybody at all, then it can only end after the entire planet has been nuked.

How soon

[Anonymous Coward]

...until people stop using the title as the beginning of their first sentence?

love button

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a love "button" that is not getting enough attention. Please come and play with my love button!

Just an expansion

[Amorymeltzer]

The WikiLove campaign has been around for ages, with the goal being simply to encourage friendliness and a positive learning/working environment. Various user scripts have been around for a while, this is just an implicit acceptance of that concept, as the feature will now be built-in instead of an option feature you have to search for.

Re:Just an expansion

[Anonymous Coward]

The WikiLove campaign has been around for ages, with the goal being simply to encourage friendliness and a positive learning/working environment. Various user scripts have been around for a while, this is just an implicit acceptance of that concept, as the feature will now be built-in instead of an option feature you have to search for.

So...You have to ask yourself, what sort of a community needs such a campaign?

Re:Just an expansion

[the_raptor]

It is pointless as the problem with Wikipedia is no life social retards that camp articles or topics and only allow real contributions from those in their cabal. Adding a campaign to increase friendly human interaction is pointless as the mafias and cabals don't understand normal human interaction.

Re:Just an expansion

[drb226]

Why exactly is this modded funny? Did I miss the joke? Sounds just plain informative to me.

Great, more ammo for the Wikipedos

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, now Wikipedos can have an additional method to spray their "love" on 13-year-olds. Just fucking great.

The "Facebooking" of the Internet...

[geekmux]

Er, Love?...I'm not trying to be negative here, but couldn't we simply leave the childish antics of Facebook within the confines of that pseudo-internet realm, or should we all simply give up and accept the fact that Facebook will ultimately become the internet?

What's next, a .groovy TLD? Give me a break.

IMHO, society has also cheapened the word "love" with stuff like this as well. No wonder marriage has become an exercise in futility with the current divorce rates when the word love has been reduced to feedback to a complete stranger on a blog post. I'm all for more kindness and compassion in the world, but c'mon...

Wikipedia needs a karma system: write before edit

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with Wikipedia is the deletionists: those who destroy content rather than creating it. There should be a karma system where you have to add a certain amount of content before you can use the karma points to destroy content.

It's gotten to the point where specialized wikis are getting all the love -- I know people who stopped contributing 5 years ago and would never even consider going back.

This isn't what first came to mind ...

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

when I read the title. I pictured the Wikimedia Foundation getting into the dating site market with some sort of Wiki-dating site (www.wikimatch.com) where people could edit the profiles of those with whom they had dates to offer commentary/feedback/pictures/etc. Or maybe something a bit more NSFW.

I can picture so many ways this could be (and will be) abused; as a (perhaps mild but still cruel) example picture getting a group together to send Beer "love" to a recovering alcoholic.

Be specific

[saibot834]

I tell you what I tell everyone with this kind of argument: Please be more specific. Tell us your username, your edits (diffs!), then we can evaluate and judge for ourselves. Otherwise, it's just FUD you're spreading.

Incidentally, I know a number of ex-users who saw Wikipedia as a platform for their own personal opinion / view of the world, a means for self-expression and so forth. They were frustrated as they did not succeed (obviously) and now they complain about Wikipedia just the way you do and use the same vocabulary you did in your posts.

Re:Be specific

[kyrio]

Yeah, how about you just go look at the history of the circumcision page.

Re:Be specific

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent is a wiki-shill. Mod accordingly.

Re:Be specific

[ifrag]

I tell you what I tell everyone with this kind of argument: Please be more specific. Tell us your username, your edits (diffs!), then we can evaluate and judge for ourselves. Otherwise, it's just FUD you're spreading.

Really? You are calling him on that? It's pretty much common knowledge that's what wikipedia is like. I mean, look at this article, what is it they are trying to prevent here? Oh right, the exact thing the GP mentioned. Even if you pay attention to every minor wikipedia detail that can still happen.

Re:Be specific

[gottabeme]

You're spreading unfounded CCC (Courage, Certainty, and Confidence); in other words, you know the criticism is accurate, just like everyone else knows it, but you're a meatbot posting contradictory crap.

Not soon

[Anonymous Coward]

enough.

WikiTrue is called WikiProject Citation cleanup

[tepples]

Wikilove isn't; but WikiTrue, whose agents spend their days marking ideologically problematic material with a "citation needed", is.

A WikiProject with goals not unlike those you described actually exists on Wikipedia, and it goes by the unassuming name of WikiProject Citation cleanup. Wikipedia regulars are genre savvy enough to avoid names too similar to those mentioned in Orwell's famous novels.

Is it as cunning as a fox

[Anonymous Coward]

who's just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University?

Wikipedia mentality

[Anonymous Coward]

Why solve the problem (stuck-up, shit-for-brains administrators) when you can invent pointless shit?

P.S. will administrators be able to delete "love letters"?

You know what would encourage new editors?

[psm321]

Kick out the deletionists. Seriously, Wikipedia had such promise before they took over.

Re:You know what would encourage new editors?

[kyrio]

They only exist because of the trash above them allowing them to do what they do.

"its all about..."

[blind biker]

I am really getting tired of this shit. So, for your education, you fucking moron submitter and fucking useless moron editor: Bob's quick guide to the apostrophe.

Re:"its all about..."

[1u3hr]

That shit bothers you?

Take a deep breath :

"WIPO Talks May Portend Sweeping Broacast-Based Copyright"

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/06/25/0416217/WIPO-Talks-May-Portend-Sweeping-Broacast-Based-Copyright

In this case, it's all down to the fucking useless moron editor (timothy), since the submission ( http://yro.slashdot.org/submission/1673470/New-Broadcast-treaty-againin-WIPO) didn't have that error in the headline.

Re:"its all about..."

[Anonymous Coward]

The link provided does not refer to the dual nature of It, whether being used as a contraction or possessive.

As I recall the song:

If you want to be possessive, it's just i-t-s
But if you want it to be a contraction, it's i-t-apostraphe-s
scalawag!

Re:"its all about..."

[blind biker]

The link provided does not refer to the dual nature of It, whether being used as a contraction or possessive.

Oh yeah? Well then, will this satisfy you?

Re:What We Need For World Peace

[TheRaven64]

Nuking Israel would probably be enough - it's a big place, the problem is persuading all of the other asshats to move there first. Maybe make it the site of an international conference on oil and intellectual property rights or something...

Just more bullshit...

[kyrio]

to keep new editors away.

Here's a little suggestion...

[Stormwatch]

Ban all deletionists. And don't be so insanely strict on fair use picture size. I swear, I've seen pics being resized to be smaller than their thumbnails!

Never more !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I did my best to contribute to Wikipedia. Unfortunately there are some stupid people that truly believe that they own all knowledge in the planet.

I will never waist my time with wikipedia.

Re:nice

[kyrio]

Thanks for the link! It was really useless!

Same with book covers

[Anonymous Coward]

I contributed some book covers from 80s/early 90s computer books to articles - 100% fair use - they're all deleted now. Why waste time doing anything with WikiPedia?

Re:Same with book covers

[tepples]

I contributed some book covers from 80s/early 90s computer books to articles - 100% fair use - they're all deleted now.

Did you first try contacting the publisher of the book and asking if the cover could be released under a license for free cultural works? And once the publisher declined to do that, did you add text to the article that mentions criticism in reliable sources of the design of the cover?

BOLD, revert, discuss

[tepples]

When you get reverted, don't immediately resubmit the edit. Discuss the revert on the talk page first. If nobody replies after a week, the silence has established a presumption of change in consensus, and you can resubmit the edit.

Re:BOLD, revert, discuss

[Just Some Guy]

And then the self-appointed owner can revert the change again. That's a pretty high barrier to entry for someone who just wants to fix a typo and doesn't have the time or motivation to monitor those talk pages.

Re:BOLD, revert, discuss

[tepples]

And then the self-appointed owner can revert the change again.

If an editor refuses to participate in consensus building on an article's talk page, there are other dispute resolution procedures.

That's a pretty high barrier to entry for someone who just wants to fix a typo

If a misbehaving editor is stopping you from fixing a typo in one article, he or she is probably stopping several other people from fixing typos in other articles. You can help make Wikipedia better by correcting the editor's misbehavior.

Re:BOLD, revert, discuss

[sycorob]

Or, I can just not bother, and get on with my life. It doesn't seem reasonable that I should have to jump through hoops and argue with anonymous people that know the system way better than I do, to maybe have my edit go through. I can think of many better things to do with my free time. If the Wikipedia organizers want more people to edit the articles and make it better, they need to start by removing these ridiculous articles. This is a constant criticism that comes up every time a Wikipedia article gets posted on Slashdot, so fix it already.

Re:BOLD, revert, discuss

[Ruke]

The problem with this is that I have a very limited reserve of effort that I'm willing to drop into Wikipedia, where the camping editor seems to have limitless (or scripted) reserves of energy. It's completely unreasonable to expect someone to fix a simple typo, pay attention as it's reverted, discuss why it's a typo, monitor that discussion for a week, and then resubmit their changes and hope that it sticks this time. (I honestly don't understand the editing process well enough to hazard a guess as to how likely this is.) I simply don't care enough to spend hours over a week or two defending "assess" as a legitimate word in the English language. I probably care enough to spend a few minutes fixing it once, when I notice the first time, but it is not a battle that I feel like fighting.

Maybe this is by design; it certainly seems reasonable that those with the most invested in an article will have its best interests in mind. However, having to learn the process and politics of Wikipedia serves as a strong disincentive to those unwilling to jump into the deep end right off the bat.

Re:BOLD, revert, discuss

[elastic_collision]

You think someone who's reading an article in passing and cleans it up is going to spend the time to a) discuss it and then b) wait a week before coming back and changing it? No thanks. This time investment for what should be a trivial thing is... well absurd.

Re:BOLD, revert, discuss

[Anonymous Coward]

Normal people don't have time to babysit the Internet. If people who do are the only ones allowed to contribute to Wikipedia, well then that explains a lot about Wikipedia. The phrase "willfully ignorant" springs to mind.

Should be mandatory for ...

[Anonymous Coward]

the article on Barry White

Use the talk page

[tepples]

I did not bother to contest or debate this

That's where you made a mistake. If you get reverted, you're supposed to discuss the revert on the article's talk page.

Re:Use the talk page

[Dynedain]

Perhaps there should be more onus on the person deleting work than on the person creating it?

Wikipedia editors have created culture of deletion unless you go through obscure, undocumented rituals and procedures that match the whimsical desires of particular editors. That is not a way to induce new people to contribute with new information. That is exclusionary, cliquish and complete antithetical to Wikipedia's stated goals.

Re:Use the talk page

[jo_ham]

It makes no difference. If you fight it, you just get declared a sockpuppet account and deleted.

Re:Use the talk page

[tepples]

It makes no difference. If you fight it, you just get declared a sockpuppet account and deleted.

Would you please link to an edit where this has happened?

Re:Use the talk page

[Stupendoussteve]

"You're supposed to ____" is the problem with wikipedia in general. Normal people are not going to jump through your hoops, they have real lives outside of wikipedia and will say "screw it" when someone wants to get territorial. You also have the longtime, like user number 1, folks who will defend the wiki and policies to the death rather than admitting when something is broken.

Let's look at the last 5 Wikipedia edits by n00bs.

[Animats]

Wikipedia has a page which tracks what n00bs are doing. Here are the last five edits by new editors in article space:

• GameBot78 - ad for someone's YouTube video.
• The Mist - added uncited plot details to a Steven King novel article.
• SnowSports Industries America - cut and paste from LinkedIn page of a lobbying group.
• Reddit - added quotes around a reference to 4Chan. Unclear why.
• Baba Ramdev - edit warring over profitability of business interests of some guru.

None of those added any value to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is mostly done. All the important topics were covered in the first million articles. Most new pages are junk. It's about cleanup and correction now. That's a detail-oriented job. It's not like posting to some forum.

Sounds like a violation of WP:OWN

[tepples]

Less than half an hour later it was changed back and I received a message from the author of the parts I corrected telling me that it was "his" article

Could you offer us a link to this revert and the message that you received? From only your description, it sounds like a violation of the policy against ownership-like behavior.

That's just evil

[Just Some Guy]

What's the point - tricking new editors into thinking that their contributions are welcome and accepted? That's cruel. It's like offering an ice cream cone to a little kid and yanking it away at the last moment. It'd be a lot kinder to write a bot to revert a new editor's first 10 contributions with messages like "you are wrong and your grammer sucsk lol". At least that way they know what they're getting themselves into.

What paragraph did the excerpt illustrate?

[tepples]

The Wikipedia article about a subject should be a summary of how reliable sources (which Wikipedia defines as roughly the scholarly and mainstream media) view the subject. This means the Wikipedia article about a non-free work of authorship should be first and foremost about the reception of the work among reliable reviewers. When you added your excerpts of a non-free work to Wikipedia, did you make sure that the excerpt specifically illustrated something that one of these reviewers mentioned?

When reverted, use the talk page

[tepples]

Please see my other comment about what to do when reverted.

There are bad apples

[tepples]

When I asked why I was reverted, I was not given a reasonable answer (and was trolled in the process).

If another Wikipedia editor behaved in a blatantly uncivil manner after your attempt to apply BRD, why didn't you take the issue to one of Wikipedia's numerous options for dispute resolution?

Re:There are bad apples

[citking]

If another Wikipedia editor behaved in a blatantly uncivil manner after your attempt to apply BRD, why didn't you take the issue to one of Wikipedia's numerous options for dispute resolution?

Probably because I was 1) unaware of that process and 2) thinking that a simple edit shouldn't necessarily require an appeals process. Even now that I am aware of it the time commitment behind adding any sort of information to an article (add & cite, have it reverted, appeal, talk, discuss more, re-edit, reverted again, repeat ad nauseum) is just too great now. I don't need Wikipedia that much and if that community is going to be resistant to change then so be it.

Re:There are bad apples

[Asmodae]

You keep asking people to battle the wiki-trolls, after they've repeatedly said they don't want or have time to fight that out. They wanted to contribute a bit to public knowledge, got rebuffed, and went on their way. Asking them to slog through a lengthy discussion and appeals process just to add a few words to an article is absurd.

They wanted to commit 20 minutes or so and get on with their day. You are asking for several hours spread over days to weeks of diligent monitoring and arguing. Something they clearly indicated they don't want to do. Which is why the people willing to do that and spend the time on it, are winning AND lowering the overall value of Wikipedia.

Re:There are bad apples

[Lunix Nutcase]

Because people don't feel like wasting days and weeks of times going through a complicated bureaucracy just to make simple edits to wikipedia? Not all of us are so devoid of lives that we can waste on that time arguing with people.

Semi-protection

[tepples]

There should be a karma system where you have to add a certain amount of content

Wikipedia already has something like that: highly visible articles are often semi-protected, and editors need 96 hours and 10 edits on their account before editing a semi-protected article.

Press it good

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe people already come with big love buttons, and yes, pushing them more may be what we need for world peace.

http://www.amazon.fr/nouvelle-%C3%A9conomie-psychique-penser-aujourdhui/sim/2749210488/2

Don't they already have this?

[shoptroll]

Merit badges weren't enough incentive?

Good luck

[Maury Markowitz]

I'm a grumpy old man with 26,000+ edits and something like 5,000 to 7,000 new articles.

I'll remain grumpy and old after the button is implemented.

Re:What We Need For World Peace

[cbiltcliffe]

Nuking Israel would probably be enough - it's a big place, the problem is persuading all of the other asshats to move there first. Maybe make it the site of an international conference on oil and intellectual property rights or something...

That won't do shit for China/Tibet, Pakistan/India, or the Somali pirates, just to go by my list. And there's plenty more that I didn't list. Hell, even most of the Middle East conflicts are between people who don't give a shit about oil or intellectual property. It's either they hate some other country, or they hate their own leadership. Or both.

wikilovinit

[Anonymous Coward]

I only edited wiki once, and it still is up, because its my page on wiki. I like the love +1 button idea, but we need wiki to be strictly facts before i love it.

What the world needs now

[AkkarAnadyr]

Perhaps all we need for world peace is a big enough love button.

If you push a love button gently a few times, it gets a little bigger.

Re:Let's look at the last 5 Wikipedia edits by n00

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow I doubt the sum total of human knowledge and experience, especially in a rapidly advancing technological culture, can ever be "done".

No, it is not worse than you think

[Roger W Moore]

I had a similar, but different, experience trying to correct an article on the ATLAS experiment at CERN which claimed that it was impossible to study single quarks. Unfortunately this is not true because part of the physics program is studying top quarks which decay so fast they decay as single quarks, which is one of the reasons that they are very interesting. Within hours of me making the correction it was reverted with a comment to the effect that I did not know what I was talking about. After putting it back in it was bumped up to some editor resulting in an exchange of increasing ignorance until they decided the safest thing to do was to deny my edit while they looked into it which, as far as I know, they never did.

The article itself has changed considerably since the relevant text no longer appears in it and what they have looks correct. However this experience was enough to put me off Wikipedia. In general the conclusion I have come to is that it is ok to looking up information which is generally taught to many people at an undergraduate or lower level. However when looking up information about any nuances in a field, particularly if those nuances go against the general case taught to undergrads, it is clearly a very hit and miss experience because there are plenty of people out there who don't know what they are writing about but are unaware that they don't know what they are writing about.

Re:No, it is not worse than you think

[Twinbee]

Your case illustrates why a meritocracy/pagerank system could work well.

At least the article seems okay now.

Re:Let's look at the last 5 Wikipedia edits by n00

[Anonymous Coward]

Your life is mostly done, you pathetic turd. Stop squatting in front of wikipedia, you low life.

  Wikipedia is increasing in popularity. So what? Get the fuck out of the way, and let the real content creators through. If editors need to watch a greater volume of pages, big deal. Increased interest can help with the work. But turds like you who claim that wikipedia is "done" are stopping the creation of new and potentially important contributions -- and are killing off interest in helping manage wikipedia -- and THAT will destroy wikipedia's reputation (and allow more crap on pages) -- and destroy wikipedia.

When everyone hates you fucking bastards, no one will visit the worthless pile of trash that you have been so carefully hoarding.
Crawl off and die already, you shitbag.

Re:What We Need For World Peace

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuking racists like you would probably be enough.
Go back to stormfront/dailykos/dresden or whatever hole you crawled out of.

actually they probably get payed

[decora]

a lot of people get paid to edit wikipedia.

its the top 10 hit on virtually any google search.

imagine it from the corporate PR perspective - how can they NOT pay someone to keep an eye on it?

complainers almost never give urls

[decora]

often, the problem boils down to

1. failure to cite a source
2. failure to cite a reliable, verifiable source (not a blog, not youtube, not a fan site)
3. failure to cite a secondary source (as opposed to a primary source)

however. i have to agree there are a lot of pointless 'reverts' and deletions.

i think i have subconsciously just learned to avoid those articles and work on others.

Re:Let's look at the last 5 Wikipedia edits by n00

[thegarbz]

That's the same as saying the sum total of physics experiments done by my university involves first year students swinging a pendulum to calculate gravity. Sure they do that, but there's also others who are busy solving the mysteries of quantum entanglement.

For every group of n00bs there will be one person who adds something meaningful such as correcting a dead link, fixing a grammatical error, or linking a new scientific journal on some topic which gets reverted for no other reason than they dared edit someone's precious little page. Even if you think that fixing a typo or grammar mistake is not meaningful that doesn't necessarily mean it should be reverted (see other modded insightful posts on the topic).

Encyclopedias are ever evolving and ever refining materials. The only thing that separates Wikipedia apart from Britannica in this case is that the changes happen live, there's a pissweak audit trail and that there is this false sense of hope that anyone can contribute.

Citation provided

[gottabeme]

Thank you for demonstrating what is wrong with Wikipedia.

Re:Citation provided

[tepples]

Thank you for demonstrating what is wrong with Wikipedia.

What, that sometimes the principle of free content interferes with the work of creating an encyclopedia?

Re:Citation provided

[gottabeme]

No; the idea of notability, mainly. It's entirely subjective, yet enforced under the auspices of objectivity.

The average visitor to an article about a book or a song or some other work is just as likely, if not moreso, to be interested in the work itself and its history, rather than how it was received by a bunch of critics, whose opinion the user probably doesn't care about. Few people visit Wikipedia articles to do social-historical research about what society (and self-appointed critics) think about something--Wikipedia is not a primary source, anyway, so it's unsuitable for such research. No, they come to Wikipedia to find out what the thing is and what it's about so they can find out whether it's interesting to themselves.

Information about how the work was received and how it influenced others is definitely relevant and belongs there--but the idea that such information is the only information that belongs is a foolish one.

Re:Citation provided

[tepples]

No; the idea of notability, mainly. It's entirely subjective, yet enforced under the auspices of objectivity.

I've used a fairly objective standard: if three independent reliable sources have mentioned the subject other than in passing, the subject is notable. For example, three reviews in widely read publications, or two such reviews and a news story about its production, would make a work notable. Otherwise, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. But you may have a valid gripe about Wikipedia's unclear definition of "reliable sources", which according to WP:IRS appears to mean "scholarly or mainstream media". I admit that my attempts to define reliability more rigorously have met with resistance on project talk pages.

The average visitor to an article about a book or a song or some other work is just as likely, if not moreso, to be interested in the work itself and its history, rather than how it was received by a bunch of critics

You do have a point about it. It's just that when a work was published recently, there may not be much published information about the circumstances of the work's creation, and reviews are easier to find to establish notability.

Re:Citation provided

[gottabeme]

Your standard of objectivity is entirely subjective.

Notability is a farce.

Wikipedia is a beach made of sand castles guarded by an angry mob of insecure narcissists who can't think for themselves.

Re:Citation provided

[tepples]

What is "entirely subjective" about requiring three independent reliable sources? Are you referring to the subjective definition of what constitutes a reliable source? In that case, I would agree that notability is a farce.

Re:Citation provided

[gottabeme]

The question of reliability is one part of it; the question of independence is another; the question of the required number is yet another. The "correct" answers to each of those three questions are entirely subjective. One cannot build objectivity from subjectivity: it's logically impossible. Therefore your standard for objectivity is subjective, and a farce.

Therefore the standard of and idea of notability is subjective, and a farce.

Therefore, Wikipedia has no objective standard for what is interesting, relevant, or "notable" enough to deserve mention--it's entirely up to whomever has enough power to outvote or outshout those who disagree with him.

Therefore, Wikipedia is a place for egotists to fight and brown-nose. It's interesting that the product of it is a resource that is often useful, however its usefulness is very limited, and it's clear that it cannot be considered a reliable source.

Those who are in charge allow the worst of human nature to run rampant, and therefore it is not a place in which I wish to spend my time constructing or improving anything. It's obvious that Wikipedia has discouraged many other people in the same way. I can't help but wonder if there are any regular contributors who aren't in denial or on their own power-trips.

Perhaps the worst is that Wikipedia is disingenuous: it claims to be a free and open place that's building knowledge for the benefit of mankind, but it's really a pyramid of power-trips--a beautiful library being consumed by termites inside the structure. I cringe at the hypocrisy whenever I see a banner asking for donations.

You, sir, are a meatbot.

[gottabeme]

You, sir, are a meatbot.

Re:You, sir, are a meatbot.

[tepples]

No, that'd be Lady Gaga.

But seriously, I can see including a non-free book cover if reliable sources have commented specifically on the cover. But otherwise, what additional understanding does a non-free book cover provide such that the article would be unusable without it?

Re:You, sir, are a meatbot.

[gottabeme]

You're operating under the misconception that added material must be of such importance and significance that an article would be "unusable" without it. (Most meatbots do.)

It's unreasonable, irrational, and foolish to claim that an article about a book shouldn't have a photo of the book's cover. That's one of the most basic things that an article should have: a photo of what the article's about!

If you don't get that, then there's clearly nothing left for us to discuss.

Meatbot

[gottabeme]

Hahaha, this meatbot has a sense of humor.

Re:Meatbot

[tepples]

I would like to report such "innumerable editwars and sandbox territory fights" to people who are even more meatboticized than I. You recommended that I start by "find[ing] a moderately-popular editor" on Wikipedia; how exactly should I go about that?

Re:Meatbot

[gottabeme]

1. Go to a popular article.
2. Look at the list of editors.
3. Go to each one's page until you find one that is clearly a long-time user, involved in many articles, writes long lists of "accomplishments", is on several committees, etc.

For extra points, look at the discussions on their talk pages and follow comments to other users' talk pages. It won't be long before you come across highly-controversial admins on massive, long-lasting power trips.

Re:Meatbot

[gottabeme]

By the way, why bother reporting these problems to those who are the source of the problems? It's like going to an evil dictator and telling him, "Sir, our country is ruled by an evil dictator!..No, wait, please, sir, don't!..."

This.

[gottabeme]

"Perhaps there should be more onus on the person deleting work than on the person creating it?"

The only reason anything should be deleted is if it's wrong, i.e. factually incorrect, false, a lie.

Meatbot

[gottabeme]

Would you please go away, meatbot? Anyone can go to Wikipedia, find a moderately-popular editor, go to his talk page, and follow the trail upstream to innumerable editwars and sandbox territory fights. Stop pretending that it's rare: I submit that it's more the norm than not.

Meatbot

[gottabeme]

Either:

a) You have your head in the sand; you're in denial. You don't want to admit to yourself that your favorite pastime is fundamentally ill; that you're wasting your time; that it is doomed to eventual failure. Or,

b) You're dishonest, and publicly defend Wikipedia in spite of its glaring flaws, to justify to yourself and to the world the behavior of Wikipedia editors and, therefore, of yourself.

You can't fool us, meatbot.

This.

[gottabeme]

The perception of a pervasive problem is as much a problem as the problem itself.

But Wikipediers don't get it--another problem.

People who "get it" jumped ship a long time ago, because it's hit the iceberg of human ego and there's no coming back, unless the captain of the ship is replaced--which is unlikely.

I know Wikipedia is fundamentally ill

[tepples]

I know Wikipedia "is fundamentally ill". But if I bring up this claim to administrators, people who are even more "meatbot" than I will ask me for specific examples.

Re:I know Wikipedia is fundamentally ill

[gottabeme]

So you admit that your superiors (in the hierarchy) are also in denial or on power trips? So why do you waste your time? The ones in power are infected with egoism, like zombies that can't be cured. They can't be reasoned with--they are hypocrites who can't see their own flaws through their blinders of their superiority complexes. The only solution is to nuke it from orbit, i.e. abandon ship.

Not for deletes

[gottabeme]

Except, of course, for articles which have been deleted. How convenient.

Truth

[gottabeme]

Someone mod this man up.

I want the encyclopedia to succeed

[tepples]

So you admit that your superiors (in the hierarchy) are also in denial or on power trips? So why do you waste your time?

Because I want the encyclopedia to succeed. And even if I did "abandon ship" in favor of a fork, I'd want to iron down what policies this fork would have, in particular how they would differ from those of Wikipedia. And the same questions would need to be answered: when did the process go wrong, and in each case, what should have been changed to make it go right the next time.

Re:I want the encyclopedia to succeed

[gottabeme]

Well, I honestly wish you luck, but I don't see how such success can be achieved as long as it's corrupt to the core. I hope the time you spend on it does not end up being spent in vain. I hope, though, that people like you who really do care will do just that: fork and start over with some kind of constitution that mitigates the corruption from the beginning. If not pure-minded idealists, who will?

WMF staff wants help with editor retention

[tepples]

By the way, why bother reporting these problems to those who are the source of the problems?

Because the top-level administrators (WMF staff, if I remember correctly) have asked for suggestions on how to improve editor retention. See for example this Signpost article from two months ago.

Re:WMF staff wants help with editor retention

[gottabeme]

Um...are you really so gullible? That's like a company wanting to increase profits while cutting back on quality control and customer service. It's like a TV show wanting to increase ratings by appealing to the lowest common denominator, destroying what made the show worth watching in the first place. It's like putting a finger in a broken dyke that has huge holes that are gushing water. It's like putting a bandaid on a gaping chest wound.

Of course, it's a lot easier to implement feel-good measures to improve morale rather than addressing the actual problems. Why not give out arcade tickets to editors and let them redeem them for Wikipedia t-shirts and coffee mugs?

They either don't get it (in which case they are incredibly stupid), or they are unwilling to change to fix the real problems, because they like too much about the status quo. My guess is the latter.

It's fun being on the crew of the largest oceanliner in history--quite an honor. It's foolish to try using sharks with head-mounted lasers to melt icebergs that lay in your path.

Articles about what is between the covers

[tepples]

You're operating under the misconception that added material must be of such importance and significance that an article would be "unusable" without it. (Most meatbots do.)

It is the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation to create educational under a license for free cultural works. If people could add non-free works willy-nilly to Wikipedia articles, then Wikipedia wouldn't be "The Free Encyclopedia" now, would it? Consider that the German version of Wikipedia doesn't allow non-free illustrations at all.

It's unreasonable, irrational, and foolish to claim that an article about a book shouldn't have a photo of the book's cover.

The cover of which edition?

That's one of the most basic things that an article should have: a photo of what the article's about!

Most book articles that I've read on Wikipedia are about what is between the covers. If a section of the article is about the cover, then as I've said, go ahead and upload the cover.

Re:Articles about what is between the covers

[gottabeme]

Sounds like you don't believe in Fair Use.

"Most book articles that I've read on Wikipedia are about what is between the covers. If a section of the article is about the cover, then as I've said, go ahead and upload the cover."

You just don't get it. Another meatbot policy wonk. People like you are holding Wikipedia back from what it could be. Attitudes like yours have no place on Internet media--they belong in old, paper media, where space is limited. It's like you can't see over the horizon--a horizon defined by whoever decided to spend the time to type up a policy on matter X and upload it, while other people were actually being constructive and creative.

It is small minds who spend their days thinking of ways to restrict the freedom of others.