Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikipedia Adds "WikiLove" For Newbie Editors

Posted by samzenpus on from the communal-hug dept.

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."

14 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. I tell you what by trifish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I tell you what by Twinbee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    2. Re:I tell you what by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:I tell you what by Bieeanda · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    4. Re:I tell you what by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Too much happiness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  3. How soon by realinvalidname · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  4. Re:Like, +1, now WikiLove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  5. The Auto-Delete Bots Really Bothered Me by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  6. I want a "hate" button by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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).

  7. WikiTrue is called WikiProject Citation cleanup by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Wikipedia is communism by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  9. Re:Encouragement by nyctopterus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

  10. Re:Like, +1, now WikiLove by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

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