Slashdot Mirror
A Third of Wikipedia Discussions Are Stuck in Forever Beefs (vice.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Wikipedia, the internet's encyclopedia, is run entirely by volunteers -- people who spend large swaths of their personal time making sure the information that hundreds of millions of people access every day stays accurate and up-to-date. Of those volunteers, 77 percent of Wikipedia articles are written by just one percent of Wikipedia editors. As such, tensions tend to get a little high, because these editors are often highly invested. They've been arguing about corn for nearly a decade, for example, and there's a long-running edit war about the meaning of neuroticism.
When editors disagree about an edit to be made on a Wikipedia article, they start by discussing it on the article's Talk page. When that doesn't result in a decision, they can open a Request for Comment (RfC). From there, any editor can choose a side or discuss the merits of whatever edit is up for discussion, and -- in theory -- come to an agreement. Or at least, some kind of decision about how to make the edit. But a new study by MIT researchers found that as many as one-third of RfC disputes go unresolved, often abandoned out of frustration or exhaustion. The most common sticking points were chalked up to inexperience, inattention from experience editors, and just plain petty bickering.
When editors disagree about an edit to be made on a Wikipedia article, they start by discussing it on the article's Talk page. When that doesn't result in a decision, they can open a Request for Comment (RfC). From there, any editor can choose a side or discuss the merits of whatever edit is up for discussion, and -- in theory -- come to an agreement. Or at least, some kind of decision about how to make the edit. But a new study by MIT researchers found that as many as one-third of RfC disputes go unresolved, often abandoned out of frustration or exhaustion. The most common sticking points were chalked up to inexperience, inattention from experience editors, and just plain petty bickering.
It's been that way for a decade. I gave up trying to contribute long ago.
It's now a battleground, and the winners are the ones who are most persistent.
It's like a home owners association - the place is run by people with not enough to do, and a desire to control others.
> What they really need are a few judges who weigh the arguments and ...
Yes, for some (most?) topics that would work quite well !
i.e. If you have a PhD you get to judge the quality of accuracy.
For other topics who determines who gets to judge? Popularity probably isn't a good measuring stick on most cases except in the case of niche cases. For example, on the topic of multiplayer games you probably DO want to listen to YouTube streamers who constantly play and stream the game.
e.g. If you play Starcraft 2 you've probably watched PiG, Winter, etc streamers give tips & info.
Some topics are purely subjective and based on opinion -- there is no authority on the matter -- there is no way to reconcile differences. Although since that is the current way Wikipedia works right now so at least we would have *some* improvements.
Although I've known more than a few brilliant and competent PhDs, some of the most egregiously ignorant people I have ever known - not stupid, but instead purposely and proudly uninformed - also hold doctorates.
The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon; the paper certifying expertise does not grant or even prove it.