write passages like this one:
I fixed it to make it more readable, as you can tell from clicking the link. Now, of course, an edit war will begin.
Anyway, that’s just me. What pisses you about Wikpiedia articles or editors?
I hate it when they add ridiculously wordy qualifying comments, such as (made-up example):
“Although crucifixion is considered one of the most painful execution methods, not everyone agrees with this assessment. In fact, others argue that drowning or even hanging would be a considerably more painful way to die. In truth, however, it is possible to know, since not too many people have survived a crucifixion so it would be hard to ask them. The painfulness of crucifixion remains an open question, although those who have witnessed a crucifixion will attest to the powerful screams emanating from the victim, and it is probably no coincidence that crucifixion has been used to execute the most villified of criminals.”
My major beef is with those who delete wikipedia pages for topics they think are irrelevant. Who will it hurt to have one more Wikipedia page?
Not a big fan of the notability (i.e., you have to be published to have an article on Wikipedia–the Wiki itself I think printed off some BS material so it can meet its own standards). I like all of my information in one big searchable archive. I don’t care how popular or how obscure it is. If it hasn’t been published you can just say so on the article.
Hahaha … don’t look now but the third paragraph starts the same way. And the first paragraph of the next section will probably get to you too. Better to just move on. But yeah the original was hard to read.
I’ve changed that too and am preparing to go to the mattresses. If I stop posting suddenly, I’ll expect you guys to avenge my death or something.
I hate Wikipedia editors who don’t seem to get that the site is intended to be an encyclopedia and not a list of trivia from TV shows and books, a place to dump self-promotional content or spam links, or a way to try to convince other people that all the experts on any given topic are wrong and part of a conspiracy to hide the truth.
As far as “what will it hurt to have an extra page” goes, it hurts the credibility of the site and just encourages more stupid edits of the same kind, increasing the server space needed and bandwidth expenses and wasting the time of the editors who have to clean up after these people. If someone doesn’t respect the concept of an an encyclopedia then he or she shouldn’t touch the links to edit a page.
How about the ones who insist on removing any references to popular culture?
At the end of an article about a historic event, or a famous person or place, someone will add a reference to a movie, novel, or song that mentions it. It gets deleted for being “not relevant” or “fictional”.
We know novels and movies are fiction, ok? If you want to add something like “The description in this novel is inaccurate”, that’s great! But you don’t have to delete it.
I read lots of pop culture listings over there, but I can’t stand people who think summarizing the plot of a particular work involves listing every single joke, both setup and punchline, with ridiculous and mirthkilling detail.
Or when the plot of an episode of The Simpsons is outweighed by the long list of suspected “cultural references”.
…most of which are staggeringly obvious, of course. You can just imagine Homer reading it. “SPIDER-PIG IS A REFERENCE TO SPIDER-MAN!!! THIS SHOW IS GENIUS???”
The Simpsons is actually just what I was thinking of when I made my post. A plot summary is for summarizing the plot, not making a painstaking list of every time Homer misunderstands something. Some of the entries take nearly as long to read as they take to watch.
And then there are the editors that remove every change input by those of us who prefer to remain anonomous. I had one reset one where I had found a clear typographical error (a critter’s size was in feet, not inches, and his response was “can you prove they don’t get 9 feet long”?:rolleyes:)
And, yep Skald, your edit was reversed.
It’s kind of nice if you don’t get what a particular joke refers to when you can look it up. It may not be as funny if you have to have it explained, but at least you’re that much more pop culture-educated.
Timely. My wife works for a character education partnership, basically the preeminent organization dealing with this (admittedly somewhat narrow) subject. The entry for Character Education was edited by a member of their staff to include pertinent information and lend the type of knowledge that the preeminent organization of its type would give.
And it got shitcanned by a so-called administrator with a rather poor grasp of the subject matter and some sort of agenda. I think they think that any sort of “character education” is some sort of right-wing concept. Which is completely at odds with reality and indeed, the makeup of the majority of my wife’s organization.
So what are they to do? They can try to re-enter the info, but then they’re just going to get hosed by that admin. I told her they need to go over that person’s head, as clearly, they are some sort of weirdo with an agenda. Plus, basically, they are far more qualified to define character education, and this admin, demonstrably, is not.
How exactly do you do that? Do you have to sue them, like that guy who was wrongly implicated in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy?
I love everything about Wikipedia, and would not change even one tiny aspect of it. Wikipedia is the greatest human achievement of all time.
I’m waiting to see if one of my edits is “corrected” again. The author of a popular book series also writes short stories, published in various urban fantasy anthologies, set in the same universe, and I edited the page to make note of where the stories occur chronologically during the series since the point of listing them at all is so readers know which books the stories fall between.
It was corrected by someone who decided that they should be listed “like they are on the author’s site,” which is simply a list of her books and the anthologies by publishing date without even a summary of the novels. The problem is that she didn’t publish the short stories in chronological order (nor was there any suggestion on the author’s site that you read things by published date)
Hopefully, before it’s “fixed” again the other person might look at the edit history and read my reasons for changing them back such as “short story X must take place before novel Y given a character who died in novel Y is in short story X” and not change things all over again.
:: lighting cigarette, taking long, slow drag ::
:: loading shotgun ::
So I see. Well, like I said–to the mattresses. If I’m not back in three days, DrDeth gets my remaining super-villain stuff.
:: prances off whistling ::
Meh, I take the zero tolerance route and if it isn’t cited, scrub it.
Take it to the talk page, make a Request For Comment, look for editors of similar articles who seem to be “on message”.
The talk page isn’t enabled for this article (I’m sure the editor has something to do with that), and the process for arbitration is so convoluted and labor-intensive that only OCD pedants could follow it. You should be able to click on something and say “Hey this is wrong; here’s my credentials, your editor is isn’t neutral”, and get it fixed.
The talk page isn’t enabled? Are you sure about that? I think a talk page exists for all pages on Wikipedia. My guess is that no one has ever added anything to the talk page.