Then this is an issue for UL, not the tech companies. Just slap a sticker on the cable that tells me how many watts it is rated for. Also, all the complaints were about Type C cables "frying" electronics. How does that even happen unless there just plain wiring mixups? Cable authentication can't stop that problem cause it happens right when its plugged in!
I think a lot of the problems with reverts and deletions turning off new editors is that new editors are usually drawn into editing minefields simply because of the way human nature works. Since people edit what they read, the most new editors would be drawn to the most popular articles. Popular articles see higher levels of policing than non-popular articles and have also at higher levels of development with a large amount of edit and talk page history. Someone going in to make edits about Han shooting first is of course going to get shot down almost immediately. The other thing that draws users is to add pages about something they know. However something that you know that Wikipedia has missed is likely to not be very notable. As the article discussed notability used to be much more lax, but today the guidelines are in place to make sure there is some third party source material and not just an editor writing stuff from their own experiences. Therefore new editors often get dinged on notability problems. Finally, new editors might not know that people, places, historical events and popular media properties are given much higher scrutiny than let's say 1970's railroad locomotives.
I have had my fair share of run-ins with Wiki Nazis, but generally when I am adding to legitimate gaps in the content that aren't in one of the minefields, I rarely run into problems. Wikipedia probably just needs to do a better job to hive new editors a heads up that they might want to stick to various types of non-controversial edits, like spelling corrections, before they dive in to the deep end. Most open source projects work with way with new contributors needing to work on bug fixes before they can add features.
Regarding deletions, more often than not it is anonymous users who try to come in and delete whole chunks out of an article. It's crap like that that makes me need to patrol my watchlist.
After having four new pages in a row deleted that had four or more citations each, I gave up. One of the pages was for my uncle who was nominated for a grammy and has two platinum records, but his page was deleted for not being "notable."
The fact that it took a family member to add the person's page indeed proves that the person is not notable. Neutral Point of View means that if you have a vested interest in a page, aka the person was your family member, then you should not be editing it. OMG, the system works,
"First is highly specialized knowledge..." Explain then why people with exactly that kind of knowledge can't get their information through page sitting editors.
It's exactly what i was going to post.
I'm in a group of retrocomputing enthusiasts. We dig, bid, pursue and beyond for pisces of history of he computer industry - mainly from my own country. Problem is, n this process, we find out facts and curiosities that we just can't publish on Wikipedia.
That would be alright - except that someone else had published facts and misinformation that we know for sure about the veracity - as we own the product, the official advertising material (sometimes even the original piece) and the official manuals.
So, the current status quo is that some SOB gets there first, publish anything he thinks it's right and make a hell of a fuss against every single further contribution, no matter the source. Once I saw one editor making a insane broad interpretation for what's a "blog", to justify ignoring a technical article printed in a online service. By that interpretation, the very damned Wikipedia is a blog, god damnit.
If you find someone that has some vested interest in blocking your edits, you simply have to spend the time and effort needed to defeat them. Your two best weapons are Wikipedia Policy itself and other Wikipedia users you can recruit to your cause. Wikipedia policy is such that almost everything is violating it. People who try to invoke policy to enforce their point of view are basically throwing stones in a glass house. If they can outlast raw aggression, ie out revert you, then you can usually win by switching to passive aggression. Tag every uncited fact with a citation needed. Delete all of his stuff that doesn't meet policy. Hit him with deletion and merge votes backed up by your friends. If the editor complains bring in an admin. Admins will generally enforce policy properly so because all pages violate policy you can usually grind the page to a halt. At some point the stubborn editor will usually give in.
Also numbers matter. If you really wanted to win you edit war you would have told/. exactly what the problem article was, exactly what you wanted to do to fix it and who was in your way. Then everyone here could have gone and ganged up on the WikiNazi. It's just like every other battle. Be the first with the most.
Yes, Wikipedia has become political, but the good news is that its a great place to learn how to fight political battles. You'll be all the better for it.
Laws are so vague that most Americans commit three felonies per day so you might as well make them count. The same security researchers who complain about the DMCA blocking their research will gladly go down to the corner to but pot or Torrent the newest season of Game of Thrones.
If an anonymous person in a foreign country "leaks" some code from a secured device then hey, that's fair game. Unfortunately, academic researchers feed the need to blab about every step in the process.
Do you think those security research firms who sell vulnerabilities to various governments for cold hard cash give one lick about the DMCA? They know how to keep their mouths shut.
Slashdot Mirror
Then this is an issue for UL, not the tech companies. Just slap a sticker on the cable that tells me how many watts it is rated for. Also, all the complaints were about Type C cables "frying" electronics. How does that even happen unless there just plain wiring mixups? Cable authentication can't stop that problem cause it happens right when its plugged in!
I think a lot of the problems with reverts and deletions turning off new editors is that new editors are usually drawn into editing minefields simply because of the way human nature works. Since people edit what they read, the most new editors would be drawn to the most popular articles. Popular articles see higher levels of policing than non-popular articles and have also at higher levels of development with a large amount of edit and talk page history. Someone going in to make edits about Han shooting first is of course going to get shot down almost immediately. The other thing that draws users is to add pages about something they know. However something that you know that Wikipedia has missed is likely to not be very notable. As the article discussed notability used to be much more lax, but today the guidelines are in place to make sure there is some third party source material and not just an editor writing stuff from their own experiences. Therefore new editors often get dinged on notability problems. Finally, new editors might not know that people, places, historical events and popular media properties are given much higher scrutiny than let's say 1970's railroad locomotives.
I have had my fair share of run-ins with Wiki Nazis, but generally when I am adding to legitimate gaps in the content that aren't in one of the minefields, I rarely run into problems. Wikipedia probably just needs to do a better job to hive new editors a heads up that they might want to stick to various types of non-controversial edits, like spelling corrections, before they dive in to the deep end. Most open source projects work with way with new contributors needing to work on bug fixes before they can add features.
Regarding deletions, more often than not it is anonymous users who try to come in and delete whole chunks out of an article. It's crap like that that makes me need to patrol my watchlist.
After having four new pages in a row deleted that had four or more citations each, I gave up. One of the pages was for my uncle who was nominated for a grammy and has two platinum records, but his page was deleted for not being "notable."
The fact that it took a family member to add the person's page indeed proves that the person is not notable. Neutral Point of View means that if you have a vested interest in a page, aka the person was your family member, then you should not be editing it. OMG, the system works,
"First is highly specialized knowledge..." Explain then why people with exactly that kind of knowledge can't get their information through page sitting editors.
It's exactly what i was going to post.
I'm in a group of retrocomputing enthusiasts. We dig, bid, pursue and beyond for pisces of history of he computer industry - mainly from my own country. Problem is, n this process, we find out facts and curiosities that we just can't publish on Wikipedia.
That would be alright - except that someone else had published facts and misinformation that we know for sure about the veracity - as we own the product, the official advertising material (sometimes even the original piece) and the official manuals.
So, the current status quo is that some SOB gets there first, publish anything he thinks it's right and make a hell of a fuss against every single further contribution, no matter the source. Once I saw one editor making a insane broad interpretation for what's a "blog", to justify ignoring a technical article printed in a online service. By that interpretation, the very damned Wikipedia is a blog, god damnit.
If you find someone that has some vested interest in blocking your edits, you simply have to spend the time and effort needed to defeat them. Your two best weapons are Wikipedia Policy itself and other Wikipedia users you can recruit to your cause. Wikipedia policy is such that almost everything is violating it. People who try to invoke policy to enforce their point of view are basically throwing stones in a glass house. If they can outlast raw aggression, ie out revert you, then you can usually win by switching to passive aggression. Tag every uncited fact with a citation needed. Delete all of his stuff that doesn't meet policy. Hit him with deletion and merge votes backed up by your friends. If the editor complains bring in an admin. Admins will generally enforce policy properly so because all pages violate policy you can usually grind the page to a halt. At some point the stubborn editor will usually give in. Also numbers matter. If you really wanted to win you edit war you would have told /. exactly what the problem article was, exactly what you wanted to do to fix it and who was in your way. Then everyone here could have gone and ganged up on the WikiNazi. It's just like every other battle. Be the first with the most.
Yes, Wikipedia has become political, but the good news is that its a great place to learn how to fight political battles. You'll be all the better for it.
Strange that prison guards don't seem to know about shotguns.
Laws are so vague that most Americans commit three felonies per day so you might as well make them count. The same security researchers who complain about the DMCA blocking their research will gladly go down to the corner to but pot or Torrent the newest season of Game of Thrones. If an anonymous person in a foreign country "leaks" some code from a secured device then hey, that's fair game. Unfortunately, academic researchers feed the need to blab about every step in the process. Do you think those security research firms who sell vulnerabilities to various governments for cold hard cash give one lick about the DMCA? They know how to keep their mouths shut.