Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-15-2019, 08:40 AM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 27,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post
Yeah, but I already have a job. Which is what it boils down to -- maybe there's some way to get past the politics and elitist editors and get into the "in crowd" and all that but it's just not that important to me. If I see something I can improve and someone else slaps it down in some nerdfight, I'm going to just move along. I'm not invested enough to get into it with them or go through their "process" just so I can add a cite or an update to an article.
There are almost six million articles on Wikipedia and the number of editors who are in this "in crowd" or are protective of their pages is probably, at best, in the few thousands. It seems to me that the odds are that you're unlikely to come across one of these editors. So I don't think such stories should discourage people from trying to contribute, as long as they understand the rules, particularly about providing cites.
  #52  
Old 02-15-2019, 08:53 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 29,426
I've made minor grammatical corrections and a few Citation Needed tags, but I've only made one contribution beyond that, and it was still very minor: in the article on the Baltic Sea, it was mentioned that it is fresh enough (at least in most places and times) that drinking it will hydrate you rather than dehydrate you: yes, that link goes to the definition of a chemical hydrate. So I Was Bold and just broke the link because the link made no sense in context, because drinking water from the Baltic Sea will not turn you into a molecule chemically bonded to two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms.
  #53  
Old 02-15-2019, 08:59 AM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 27,464
I think you were right to break that link. I've seen similar things occur. For a (made-up) example, an article about an actor might include his filmography, including his appearance in a 2005 film version of A Christmas Carol, with the title linked to the article on the original novel rather than the film. So if I see something like that, I'll change to the link to the one for the movie, and if it doesn't exist, remove the link entirely.

There's a big split within Wikipedia about how to handle "redlinks" or links that go to non-existent articles. Some people think the redlinks should be removed, while others think they should be left in place in case the article linked to is eventually written.

Last edited by Dewey Finn; 02-15-2019 at 08:59 AM.
  #54  
Old 02-15-2019, 09:13 AM
DCnDC's Avatar
DCnDC is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Dueling Grounds
Posts: 11,611
I've corrected spelling, grammar, and minor formatting errors when I've encountered them and have time to deal with it. Any more than that and I've found my changes are almost immediately deleted by the WikiNazis, so I don't bother anymore.
  #55  
Old 02-15-2019, 09:46 AM
typoink is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,715
The only time I ever actually added information that I can recall was corrected and expanding information about a cigarette company whose products I used for the very brief window where I occasionally smoked. This was EARLY days of wikipedia, where a lot of pages were still stubs or the "obviously written in half an hour by a teenager with no cites" level of thing. My edits stuck around for a while, but it appears to have been replaced by a much more "encyclopedic" entry that I would almost guarantee was done by the company or a tobacco trade group or such.

Beyond that, I'll occasionally fix spelling, grammar, or remove obvious errors, but that's about it. I don't have the time / inclination / skills for adding cites and I know it's not worth the bother without.
  #56  
Old 02-15-2019, 11:36 AM
Johanna's Avatar
Johanna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 13,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
I've made minor grammatical corrections and a few Citation Needed tags, but I've only made one contribution beyond that, and it was still very minor: in the article on the Baltic Sea, it was mentioned that it is fresh enough (at least in most places and times) that drinking it will hydrate you rather than dehydrate you: yes, that link goes to the definition of a chemical hydrate. So I Was Bold and just broke the link because the link made no sense in context, because drinking water from the Baltic Sea will not turn you into a molecule chemically bonded to two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
I think you were right to break that link. I've seen similar things occur. For a (made-up) example, an article about an actor might include his filmography, including his appearance in a 2005 film version of A Christmas Carol, with the title linked to the article on the original novel rather than the film. So if I see something like that, I'll change to the link to the one for the movie, and if it doesn't exist, remove the link entirely.
Whoa, whoa. Didn't you notice the hatnote at the top of the page?
This article is about chemical compounds. For hydration in humans or animals, see drinking.
That was put there for exactly the purpose of removing the confusion you mentioned. Word-sense disambiguation. It would have been more helpful to simply redirect the link to drinking instead of removing it. If you inadvertently link to a disambiguation page, a bot will notify you so that you can direct the link to where it specifically belongs. It happens to all of us, but editors don't sweat that because it's easily fixed. Rookie mistakes like linking to a novel instead of a film with the same title is something an editor learns to avoid very early on. Did you really think the system doesn't have a way to correct for that?
  #57  
Old 02-15-2019, 03:02 PM
jackdavinci is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Port Jefferson Sta, NY
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Yes, exactly. I decided I'm not going to volunteer significant time, effort, and expertise to go through all this bullshit. I get paid to do this stuff.
I think this (though in a different way than you) gets to the heart of my disillusionment. Coming from a family whose mentality is work to get paid and survive, but also being exposed to notions of collaboration out of interest or passion from volunteering, conventions, festivals, and even fiction like Star Trek, I've always had a deep cognitive dissonance on the subject. Wikipedia seemed like an ideal project, and the people felt like "my tribe". In some ways it was very representative of the promises of the internet. Which itself was initially a utopian garden for free speech. But magnifying these ideals has also magnified their flaws. The biggest of which, is underdevelopment of contextualization.
  #58  
Old 02-15-2019, 03:30 PM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 29,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna View Post
Whoa, whoa. Didn't you notice the hatnote at the top of the page?
This article is about chemical compounds. For hydration in humans or animals, see drinking.
That was put there for exactly the purpose of removing the confusion you mentioned. Word-sense disambiguation. It would have been more helpful to simply redirect the link to drinking instead of removing it. If you inadvertently link to a disambiguation page, a bot will notify you so that you can direct the link to where it specifically belongs. It happens to all of us, but editors don't sweat that because it's easily fixed. Rookie mistakes like linking to a novel instead of a film with the same title is something an editor learns to avoid very early on. Did you really think the system doesn't have a way to correct for that?
That was added after I broke the link. I debated adding a link to oral rehydration anyway but couldn't find one that seemed appropriate, and said so in the edit comment in case anyone wanted to add one. The sentence still contains a link to "dehydration" which should contain the vast majority of what you need to know about rehydration anyway.
  #59  
Old 02-15-2019, 04:22 PM
Johanna's Avatar
Johanna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 13,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
That was added after I broke the link. I debated adding a link to oral rehydration anyway but couldn't find one that seemed appropriate, and said so in the edit comment in case anyone wanted to add one. The sentence still contains a link to "dehydration" which should contain the vast majority of what you need to know about rehydration anyway.
OK, cool. Sorry if I snapped at you. Just in general around here, the carping against Wikipedia is too often ill-informed and unfair. My point is that the system really works. What I'm seeing too much of is mere carping instead of well-founded criticism. I've been seriously critical of Wikipedia in areas that in my considered opinion need improving, particularly the gender gap. Because I care about it, I back up my criticism with action toward solving the problem. Overall, Wikipedia is a fucking awesome treasurehouse of knowledge. It deserves more respect from Dopers given the stated mission of the Dope. Especially now that Cecil has retired.
  #60  
Old 02-15-2019, 04:26 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 27,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna View Post
Rookie mistakes like linking to a novel instead of a film with the same title is something an editor learns to avoid very early on. Did you really think the system doesn't have a way to correct for that?
So what's the way the system has to correct for that? Because I've manually corrected such things more than once.
  #61  
Old 02-15-2019, 04:39 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna View Post
Overall, Wikipedia is a fucking awesome treasurehouse of knowledge.
So true. Sometimes I even get paid to look stuff up in Wikipedia. But it's value just in addressing my personal learning interests is unsurpassed.

Last edited by Ruken; 02-15-2019 at 04:39 PM.
  #62  
Old 02-15-2019, 05:26 PM
gaffa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna View Post
OK, cool. Sorry if I snapped at you. Just in general around here, the carping against Wikipedia is too often ill-informed and unfair. My point is that the system really works. What I'm seeing too much of is mere carping instead of well-founded criticism. I've been seriously critical of Wikipedia in areas that in my considered opinion need improving, particularly the gender gap. Because I care about it, I back up my criticism with action toward solving the problem. Overall, Wikipedia is a fucking awesome treasurehouse of knowledge. It deserves more respect from Dopers given the stated mission of the Dope. Especially now that Cecil has retired.
I've often told people "You don't get to complain about Wikipedia, as you can fix it" although fixing it is often a huge pain. The issue isn't Wikipedia or the basic system, but the type of people it attracts as well as the type it repels. I explain it this way "Imagine, if you will, a bureaucracy staffed entirely by volunteer bureaucrats."

Last edited by gaffa; 02-15-2019 at 05:27 PM.
  #63  
Old 02-15-2019, 08:21 PM
dtilque is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: My own private Nogero
Posts: 6,547
I've compiled several wiki-lists on a topic I like. Also made a number of additions to other, usually stub, articles with the same info that is in the list. One of the lists has been deleted for reasons I didn't really understand. I thought it was a valid topic, but others disagreed. I did get a (I thought) rather bogus accusation of Original Research about this list. I understand the original reason for the OR rule, but it seems to have mutated into a club to attack articles or changes someone doesn't like. I also sensed some politics behind the afd, but don't have any evidence to support that.

Today, I mostly just keep an eye on the remaining lists and don't do much else. I don't mind people making valid additions to them, but really there aren't many to add. I was rather thorough in their initial compilation.

ETA: One other thing: I supported my lists with extensive cites. I have yet to see anyone who makes an addition to them add a reference. Not one. Someone did add "citation needed"s to one of the lists for those entries I hadn't referenced.

Last edited by dtilque; 02-15-2019 at 08:25 PM.
  #64  
Old 02-15-2019, 10:15 PM
Johanna's Avatar
Johanna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 13,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
So what's the way the system has to correct for that? Because I've manually corrected such things more than once.
Yep, me too. Every time I discover a mislaid link I direct it to where it belongs. The system I referred to works by detecting links unintentionally made to disambiguation pages and prompting the editor who made them to direct them to the specific intended page.
  #65  
Old 02-16-2019, 02:30 AM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 18,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
There are almost six million articles on Wikipedia and the number of editors who are in this "in crowd" or are protective of their pages is probably, at best, in the few thousands. It seems to me that the odds are that you're unlikely to come across one of these editors.
Well, I'm at 66% for coming across those ever-so-rare editors. Maybe I should buy lottery tickets.
  #66  
Old 02-17-2019, 12:06 AM
rowrrbazzle's Avatar
rowrrbazzle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,679
Almost all just fixing typos and other simple errors. The rest I work with cites only, correcting errors where I have cites, providing cites where needed, and adding relevant info with cites.

I've been reverted a few times, but for most of them I didn't feel my changes were worth fighting over. Once on Wikiquote I politely asked the reverter his reasons, showed him hard evidence proving he was wrong, and he relented.
  #67  
Old 02-17-2019, 12:15 AM
rowrrbazzle's Avatar
rowrrbazzle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicago
Posts: 8,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
So what's the way the system has to correct for that? Because I've manually corrected such things more than once.
That's the system.
  #68  
Old 02-17-2019, 05:08 AM
Musicat is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sturgeon Bay, WI USA
Posts: 20,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
I don't make grammar or spelling changes. You probably wouldn't want me to anyway. I'm an engineer, and engineers are notorious for bad grammar and spelling.
And that's where people like me come in.

Fixing grammar, spelling, and confusing wording rarely gets reverted. Not so with useful, original data, so I stick to what sticks.

Last edited by engineer_comp_geek; 02-17-2019 at 08:39 AM. Reason: fixed quote
  #69  
Old 02-17-2019, 06:41 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,917
The previous post needs an editor to fix attribution
  #70  
Old 02-17-2019, 08:40 AM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 23,353
Moderator Note

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
The previous post needs an editor to fix attribution
I do make minor edits here. Quote fixed.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017