I’m always the one fixing articles on Wikipedia, rather than vandalizing. Some of them are very clever and some are just stupid and random. The really random ones are my favorites, though. Such as this one I found tonight:
I meant Wiki rejecting my edit–somehow I thought one post mentioned that there was a proper process to editing Wiki articles, and that not following protocol means the edits get reversed. I may have been hallucinating that entire concept.
I think I may have told the world that the population of elephants has tripled.
And once replaced a widely templated image with something completely unrelated.
:o
But I generally do wiki-gnomic stuff as an anon.
But some of the termites get too obsessive about this. I once corrected a minor error about what color a bridge was. Somebody posted I needed a cite. I explained that I lived a mile away from the bridge and could see what color it was. So they reverted my correction because it was “original research”. I asked if it would be acceptable for me to start a website called “What Color the Bridge in My Town Is” and then cite my own website as an authority.
I’ve inserted “black research” into several Wikipages on subjects that are dear to me. What do I mean by “black research”? Not my original factfinding, but useful and interesting stuff from sources like SDMB or other web boards that’s not likely ever to be referenced in “acceptable” form.
Maybe some of it will turn out to be erroneous or even folklore, but I only spread info from posters whose expertise and knowledgeability I trust. If it doesn’t pan out, I take it down.