I can see why Wikipedia editing gets contentious

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
1

Surfing around on Wikipedia yesterday, I came across the Watchmen article. I read the book years ago, and enjoyed it immensely, so I skimmed over the wiki with interest. I noticed that nowhere in the article was there any mention of the origin of the title – it comes from the Platonic rhetorical question “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” – “Who will watch the watchmen?”

I have a Wikipedia account, but the only time I edit articles is when I find typos or vandalism. My edit list has probably fewer than 10 entries.

I thought I’d be bold, but not too bold. I went to the “talk” page and noted that someone with a copy of the book should verify that the Latin quote is mentioned, and then add it to the article. The editor who, I guess, had made the article his baby quickly responded that my suggestion was unverifiable.

Today, I asked my friend to check his copy of The Watchmen, and he confirmed that the quote appears. So I went back to the talk page and mentioned this. I then wrote a sentence about it, crafted the proper internal cross-references, and inserted it into the article. Within five minutes, the same editor reverted my edit, saying “it’s likely, but unverifiable.” He wrote on the talk page that I was conducting “original research” (i.e. assuming that because the author put that quote on its own page at the end of the book, that meant the title was derived from it).

Now here’s the kicker: this made me angry! Stepping back and thinking about it, my anger is completely irrational. For two reasons. First, technically, the editor is correct, even if he’s being a ridiculous nit-picker. Second, and most importantly, I really don’t care at all about this. But for some reason, my initial urge was to go back and undo his reversion, and write a snippy note on the talk page. And I almost did it!* When you see references to “edit wars” and such, you imagine a bunch of hopeless losers furiously pounding at their keyboards, each in an futile attempt to convince the others that THEY are the “someone wrong in the internet.”

I can’t believe it’s so easy to become a stereotype. Has this ever happened to you?

*Well, technically, I DID write a snippy note after he reverted my edit but before he posted an explanation. In my defense, however, I never reverted the article.

2

The editor is being ridiculous. Given the plot of the series, and the fact that the author gave the quote its own page, the derivation is clear. And if that’s original research, so is every pop culture reference in every article that isn’t explicitly stated by the creators, since they could all be coincidences.

3

Heh, thanks for the affirmation.

But really, whether I was right or wrong is beside the point: my bigger thesis is that something about Wikipedia editing naturally makes one defensive and easily agitated. In fact, in light of my gut reaction in this situation, I’m surprised that more articles don’t degrade into petty squabbles.

4

Great reading: Wikipedia’s own page on its lamest edit wars.

5

Wikipedia is a great resource in many ways, but it is diminished by retards like that editor, and also by incredible inconsistency when it comes to defining what constitutes “original research.”

The fact that your quote is given a page all to itself at the end of the book makes it completely clear, given the translation, that there is a direct correspondence between the title and the quotation.

To argue otherwise would be like arguing that Hemingway wasn’t thinking of John Donne’s poe. when he titled his novel For Whom the Bell Tolls, even though the frontispiece of the book carries a bunch of lines from Donne’s poem, including the exact line used in the book’s title.

6

That editor’s an idiot because the source of the quote is explained very clearly and is obvious on its own. Is Platonic correct, though? I thought the quote came from Juvenal but I may just not know what “Platonic” means here.

7

Yes, the quote is from Juvenal. But the question is originally from Plato’s Republic, in that form.

8

Yes it happened to me. Big reason I can’t allow myself to go out there much.

I was writing an article on a small town back home and did what I thought was a pretty decent job of putting together the history based on a number of sources. Eventually some jackass armed with that morning’s USA Today came in and decided he was paraphase the newpaper article into Wikipedia and draw some conclusions about it. By the time he was done, 150 years of history was overshadowed by one week in 2007. Every attempt to reduce the section was thrown back as attempting to whitewash negative information.

After I fought back the urge to want to beat this clown with a baseball bat, I decided to walk away. If Wikipedia wants crap articles, then its welcome to them. The bigger Wikipedia grows, the crappier the articles will become. I am guessing that eventually Wikipedia will implode under the weight of its own crappiness and cause a small black hole where the Wikimedia Foundation used to be.

9

The section on “Hummus and friends” is both hilarious and heart-rending.