Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Announces the Most Edited Articles of 2016 (npr.org)
Wikipedia has revealed its most edited articles of 2016. Believe it or not, the two most edited articles of the year were for Deaths in 2016, which was edited 18,230 times, and Donald Trump, with 8,933 edits as of December 21. NPR reports: Some are completely unsurprising -- like the articles about Brexit, the Panama Papers, the Orlando nightclub shooting, and other recent and controversial news topics. The popularity of editing others is somewhat more mysterious: like the article for RuPaul's Drag Race, and one for a fictional character named Beverley Gray -- the subject of a series of 26 mystery stories written between 1934 and 1955. The article on Vincent Van Gogh was also edited thousands of times in 2016, as editors reportedly sought to clarify misunderstandings about the artist in hopes of achieving "featured" status for the page. The most edited article by far was for Deaths in 2016, which was edited 18,230 times. David Bowie, Janet Reno, Gwen Ifill, Leonard Cohen, Fidel Castro, Muhammad Ali, John Glenn and Prince are among the notable people who died this year. Donald Trump's entry was second, with 8,933 edits as of Dec. 21. If history is any indication, there's a good chance the president-elect's Wikipedia page will come under even more scrutiny: The Wikimedia Foundation revealed earlier this year that George W Bush's article has the most edits of any article in English in the history of the site, with 45,862 revisions at last count.
Is that just because something is edited the most, doesn't mean the article is of high quality, or importance. It seems far more likely that Donald Trump's wiki is more of a proxy war for people's frustrations with politics, and the "Weapons" are cleverly twisting Wikipedia's rules to get what you want.
I'll be surprising nobody but the most staunch biased people, that Wikipedia has plenty of great articles but you NEVER go to the "dark side" of Wikipedia... which is anything hardcore liberals might find interesting and worthy of "parking"--sitting on an article, watching any changes, and ferociously fighting any changes you don't like. As long as the parking-person is more willing to fight than you are to see the truth (almost always), then they win. And Wikipedia becomes this world of dicks fighting turf wars over control of mere words.
I'll never forget reading the article on "Political Correctness." It was horrific. Like entering a completely different (hence "dark") Wikipedia. It called PC a "pejorative" word (you know, like a hate word used to hurt someone). It argued that PC didn't actually exist AND that it was actually a good thing at the same time. It didn't even try to be rational and in the the talk pages? They "ruled" that any professor, article, or idea they didn't like was "violating Wikipedia's rules". Rules they didn't apply to their own links to radical blogs with readers in the dozens.
I'm no fan of that conservative wikipedia (ew...) but man, it sure would be nice if people were as fair and rational as they claimed to be. It doesn't help when the heads of the project at Wikimedia don't call them out and try to stop it. You know, "it's only 'wrong' if the dicks are saying things you don't agree with." Which strikes me, as an adult, and an outsider, as rather sad. A willful corruption of a wonderful idea "for the greater good."
And I say all of this AS A LIBERAL. But I'm honest first, and political second. I honestly don't understand why people are so willing to obscure facts, and twist Wikipedia guidelines to push their agenda. It's like trying to put my head into that of a serial killer, or an alien. I can't even begin to figure out why people do it. Isn't the truth a noble goal in, and of, itself? And wouldn't you want to be on the side of the truth, even if it goes against your preconceived ideas about the world? Oh well...