# I HATE Wikipedia editors who... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 24, 2009, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-wikipedia-editors-who/490643 "2009-03-24T21:08:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-wikipedia-editors-who/490643/41 "2009-03-25T14:52:12Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > The IPA is unambiguous, and language-neutral, so it’s the best choice. If people can’t read it, it’s not that hard to learn. (And the Wikipedia has the resources to help you learn it.) Yes, but it doesn’t help the casual reader who is trying to read the article on Pasiphaë. It’s possible to be TOO specific and to give too MUCH information. [QUOTE=Sage Rat] I.e. where there is just a list, rather than a sentence. Personally I’d recommend changing it to this format rather than trying to make it work as prose. It’s an encyclopedic entry, not literature, so it really should follow the proper format–something that neither you nor the original achieved. [/QUOTE] Well, of course I didn’t achieve it. I’d have had to chuck the entire original introduction and started over. Not only would that have taken more attention that I was prepared to give the matter, but it would have been seen as vandalism by some and would have been reverted. ETA: It occurs to me that, when I asked upthread why you’d want a long parenthetical digression in the very first sentence of an article, I phrased it in such a way that it would probably be seen as a rhetorical question. I didn’t mean it as such; I’m actually interested to know if you think such digressions are useful, and why, given that they so erode the readability of the passage. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-wikipedia-editors-who/490643/42 "2009-03-25T15:13:57Z")
> [@Dan\_Norder](#): > > 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. Or a free web service, for that matter. I once encountered some _Cars_ tie-in merchandise enthusiasts who wanted to designate official editors for “their” page, which has since been removed along with all the rest of the _Cars_ merchandise articles. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-wikipedia-editors-who/490643/43 "2009-03-25T15:17:57Z")
Geez Skald, there’s no need to crucify (from Latin crucifixio, noun of process from perfect passive participle crucifixus, fixed to a cross, from prefix cruci-, cross, + verb ficere, fix or do, variant form of facere, do or make) them. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-wikipedia-editors-who/490643/44 "2009-03-25T15:23:08Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > Geez Skald, there’s no need to crucify (from Latin crucifixio, noun of process from perfect passive participle crucifixus, fixed to a cross, from prefix cruci-, cross, + verb ficere, fix or do, variant form of facere, do or make) them. Remind me to bake you a pie and teleport it over later. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-wikipedia-editors-who/490643/45 "2009-03-25T15:51:54Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > Simply click on the “edit this page” link. And remember to sign your posts with four tildes ( ~~~~ ). The “four tildes” seem to be a way of saying “please delete this edit”.:mad:😛 ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-wikipedia-editors-who/490643/46 "2009-03-25T16:19:40Z")
What do you mean? When do people delete edits from talk/discussion pages? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-wikipedia-editors-who/490643/47 "2009-03-25T16:25:23Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > What do you mean? When do people delete edits from talk/discussion pages? No, you’re right they don’t delete the talk, but they delete the actual edit on the wiki page. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-wikipedia-editors-who/490643/48 "2009-03-25T17:15:44Z")
I must have gotten really lucky. I updated a broken link on the Drunk Driving (United States) page, and put in some cited statistics. Then wondered off. I checked, and they’re still there. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-wikipedia-editors-who/490643/49 "2009-03-25T17:17:56Z")
> [@Rigamarole](#): > > 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. Yes, that stuff is nice. When it goes too far in terms of detail or obviousness, it’s irritating. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-wikipedia-editors-who/490643/50 "2009-03-25T18:02:41Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > I must have gotten really lucky. I updated a broken link on the Drunk Driving (United States) page, and put in some cited statistics. Then wondered off. > > I checked, and they’re still there. Today, the 25th? ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-wikipedia-editors-who/490643/51 "2009-03-25T18:42:56Z")
I started three articles on authors without articles. All three had written and published at least two books. All three articles were deleted, the reason given was that they were stubs. The editor says that I should research more and develop a full article before I submit. Well I put as much info as I could find and I understand you don’t want an encyclopedia full of stubs but they all are published novelists (fiction) and I figure other people may be too lazy to start an article but not to add to it. Maybe even the author him(her)self. Then I just gave up. I have also deleted links that give references that you have to subscribe to (these were paid links not merely sign up links) and the editor puts them back and says “I can get in.” I am like well you must’ve paid to do it. The real problem is there is no real easy way to dispute anything, so the Wikipedia has become either very slanted or full of mish mash. I mean giving time to people that believe the earth is flat is one thing, but it also gives credibility to a totally wrong notion ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-wikipedia-editors-who/490643/52 "2009-03-25T18:49:38Z")
> [@Markxxx](#): > > I have also deleted links that give references that you have to subscribe to (these were paid links not merely sign up links) and the editor puts them back and says “I can get in.” I am like well you must’ve paid to do it. I don’t see anything wrong with that; not all legitimate references have to be links to free sources on the internet. Lots of references are book titles that you would presumably have to buy in order to read. For that matter, a lot of scientific studies are not posted in their entirety on the internet, yet they are arguably the best references available. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-wikipedia-editors-who/490643/53 "2009-03-25T19:49:20Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > ETA: It occurs to me that, when I asked upthread why you’d want a long parenthetical digression in the very first sentence of an article, I phrased it in such a way that it would probably be seen as a rhetorical question. I didn’t mean it as such; I’m actually interested to know if you think such digressions are useful, and why, given that they so erode the readability of the passage. Personally my eyes just pass over it (when it’s done right.) I want it for the same reason I want it in a dictionary before they give the definition. The title, etymology, and pronunciation are a set length. How long the description will be though, who knows. If you put the etymology in just wherever it naturally ends up, it could be anywhere in there and be a pain to find. If you put it at the end, you have to scroll all the way to the bottom for something that is very short and matter factual. And simply, it’s the accepted norm. I think it’s a bit late to move the pronunciation and etymology entries to the end of every encyclopedic entry in the English world even if it makes more sense. Overall, it’s an encyclopedia. not a novel. Readability is of course of concern, but not at the cost of failing to be an encyclopedia, to contain the basic information that people expect in the format they expect it. My personal opinion of the matter is irrelevant because this is something that was decided centuries ago when everyone learned Latin in school and it’s just the way the world is. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-wikipedia-editors-who/490643/54 "2009-03-25T19:50:34Z")
I agree; links to paid sites are not (necessarily) a problem on Wikipedia. At the same time, I disagree with the editor who deleted **Markxxx** ’s stub articles about authors. I know that I’ve seen articles for which I felt the subject deserved better coverage and gone to the trouble of greatly expanding them. (Coincidentally, the ones I worked on were for authors, although these were non-fiction writers and not novelists.) ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-wikipedia-editors-who/490643/55 "2009-03-25T20:00:54Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > At the same time, I disagree with the editor who deleted **Markxxx** ’s stub articles about authors. I know that I’ve seen articles for which I felt the subject deserved better coverage and gone to the trouble of greatly expanding them. (Coincidentally, the ones I worked on were for authors, although these were non-fiction writers and not novelists.) Agreed. Wikipedia is built on stub articles. I created the page for Max Brooks almost five years ago and it is embarassingly bad. > **[Max Brooks](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max_Brooks&oldid=8870473)** > > Maximilian Michael Brooks (born May 22, 1972) is an American writer and actor. He is the son of filmmaker Mel Brooks and actress Anne Bancroft. Much of Brooks's writing focuses on zombie stories. He was a senior fellow at the Modern War Institute at West Point, New York. > Brooks was born on May 22, 1972, in Manhattan, New York City. He is the son of actress Anne Bancroft and actor, director, producer, and writer Mel Brooks. His father is Jewish, while his mother was an Italian-American Catholic... Of course, since then, it has been refined and shaped by other Wiki editors (myself included) into a pretty nice little entry. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-wikipedia-editors-who/490643/56 "2009-03-25T20:22:41Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > **Overall, it’s an encyclopedia. not a novel. Readability is of course of concern** , but not at the cost of failing to be an encyclopedia, to contain the basic information that people expect in the format they expect it. My personal opinion of the matter is irrelevant because this is something that was decided centuries ago when everyone learned Latin in school and it’s just the way the world is. Okay, despite the fact that this thread is, for no good reason, in the Pit, I am going to try to not be insulting. But the section I bolded makes doesn’t make a damn bit of sense. You seem to be implying that readability is less important in a reference work intended for general readers than it is in a novel. That is simply nuts. You can be subtle in fiction; you can be oblique in fiction; you can be deliberately ambivalent for artistic effect; you can experiment in tons of ways. the same is true in any sort of creative writing–personal essays, memoirs, and so forth. But you DON’T do that in an encyclopedia. You present the information in a clear way, in a way that lacks ambiguity and poetic flourishes. You present the most essential information up front, and the further you get into the article, the more detailed and abstruse you can get. You DON’T overload your reader with information that does nothing but confuse him or cause her eyes to glaze over. As the passage in my OP was written before, the reader had to pause, figure out where the end of the parenthetical statement was, and struggle to make sense of the passage. That is simply stupid, and it’s a consequence of Wikipeidia’s hallmark: a dearth of true editing. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Sensitive](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/58956e/32.png) [@Darth\_Sensitive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Sensitive)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-wikipedia-editors-who/490643/57 "2009-03-25T20:44:26Z")
> [@elfkin477](#): > > 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. Diane Duane? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-wikipedia-editors-who/490643/58 "2009-03-25T20:52:16Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > As the passage in my OP was written before, the reader had to pause, figure out where the end of the parenthetical statement was, and struggle to make sense of the passage. That is simply stupid, and it’s a consequence of Wikipeidia’s hallmark: a dearth of true editing. I agreed in my first post that the way it was written before was wrong. The parenthetical section after the title, in proper encyclopedic format, is not supposed to read as text. It bothered you when you read it because it contained an explanation rather than a listing. But like I said, if you want to start killing off the encyclopedic format, then you’ve got millions of entries to go, not just in the Wikipedia, but in every other encyclopedia and dictionary currently published. > **[Geomorphology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomorphology)** > > Geomorphology (from Ancient Greek γῆ (gê) 'earth'; μορφή (morphḗ) 'form' and λόγος (lógos) 'study') is the scientific study of the origin and evolution of topographic and bathymetric features generated by physical, chemical or biological processes operating at or near Earth's surface. Geomorphologists seek to understand why landscapes look the way they do, to understand landform and terrain history and dynamics and to predict changes through a combination of field observations, physical exp Ea... > **[Spanish language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language)** > > This is an accepted version of this page > > > > Spanish (español) or Castilian (castellano) is a Romance language of the Indo-European language family that evolved from the Vulgar Latin spoken on the Iberian Peninsula of Europe. It originated in the Kingdom of Castile, a historical kingdom in north-central Spain. Today, it is a global language with 519 million native speakers, mainly in the Americas and Spain, and about 636 million speakers total, including second-language speakers. Spanish is the ... > **[Sephardic Jews](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephardim)** > > Sephardic Jews,\[a\] also known as Sephardi Jews or Sephardim,\[b\] and rarely as Iberian Peninsular Jews, are a Jewish diaspora population associated with the historic Jewish communities of the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) and their descendants. The term "Sephardic" comes from Sepharad, the Hebrew word for Iberia. These communities flourished for centuries in Iberia until they were expelled in the late 15th century. Over time, "Sephardic" has also come to refer more broadly to Jew The e... > **[Caligula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligula)** > > Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (31 August AD 12 – 24 January AD 41), also called Gaius and Caligula (/kəˈlɪɡjʊlə/), was Roman emperor from AD 37 until his assassination in AD 41. He was the son of the Roman general Germanicus and Augustus' granddaughter Agrippina the Elder, members of the first ruling family of the Roman Empire. He was born two years before Tiberius became emperor. Gaius accompanied his father, mother and siblings on campaign in Germania, at little more than four or five year... > **[Capri](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capri)** > > Capri (/ˈkɑːpri/ KAH-pree, .mw-parser-output .IPA-label-small{font-size:85%}.mw-parser-output .references .IPA-label-small,.mw-parser-output .infobox .IPA-label-small,.mw-parser-output .navbox .IPA-label-small{font-size:100%}also /kəˈpriː, ˈkæpri/ kə-PREE, KAP-ree; Italian: \[ˈkaːpri\]) is an island located in the Tyrrhenian Sea off the Sorrento Peninsula, on the south side of the Gulf of Naples in the Campania region of Italy. A popular resort destination since the time of the Roman Republic, its ... [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unilateral](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unilateral) [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/one-sided](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/one-sided) [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parti+pris?qsrc=2446](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parti+pris?qsrc=2446) It’s too late, man. Just let it go. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2009, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-wikipedia-editors-who/490643/59 "2009-03-25T20:59:25Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I agreed in my first post that the way it was written before was wrong. The parenthetical section after the title, in proper encyclopedic format, is not supposed to read as text. It bothered you when you read it because it contained an explanation rather than a listing. > > But like I said, if you want to start killing off the encyclopedic format, then you’ve got millions of entries to go, not just in the Wikipedia, but in every other encyclopedia and dictionary currently published. > > [Geomorphology - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomorphology) > [Spanish language - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language) > [Sephardic Jews - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephardim) > [Caligula - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligula) > [Capri - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capri) > [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unilateral](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unilateral) > [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/one-sided](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/one-sided) > [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parti+pris?qsrc=2446](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/parti+pris?qsrc=2446) > > It’s too late, man. Just let it go. You leave me with no choice other than to record myself singing the entire score of “Man of La Mancha,” post it on YouTube, and send a link of the clip of me singing “The Impossible Dream” to everyone’s PM box. You have only yourself to blame. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2009, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-wikipedia-editors-who/490643/60 "2009-03-27T00:25:30Z")
> [@Darth\_Sensitive](#): > > Diane Duane? 🙂 Charlaine Harris. It was edited again. But on the bright side, I learned that I can just click “undo” in the history to return it to proper order.😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-wikipedia-editors-who/490643.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-hate-wikipedia-editors-who/490643.md?page=4)