aye mo capih-etan
Similar to the OP, here is something that pissed me off a couple of weeks ago:
Seriously? I am trying to learn something I don’t know and you give me that shit? I understand trying to be literal and factual but that is not remotely helpful. I think the really high-brow things can wait until later in the article and we can start with a simpler, layman’s explanation.
And I refuse to edit Wiki. I have often thought about it, but I don’t want to get sucked into the vortex of [del]doom[/del] people forever arguing back and forth.
I really, really hate it when you say the exact thing I was attempting to convey in my OP far more pithily and clearly. It makes me feel inadequate. 
ETA: hit submit too soon. Itchy finger.
Anyway, I am not as wise as you, Anaamika. When I see a poorly written mythology or ancient history article, I simply must make it better. It’s one of my seven major tragic flaws.
Breaking that bit into a couple of short paragraphs, and linking some of the terms to definitions, would greatly have improved its usability.
Then again, a lot of stuff in wikis is just cut-n-pasted from other sources.
There are also, occasionally, the truly fact-obsessed who don’t care how usable their infogurgitation is. They put it out for the sake of putting it out, and thankfully, people like Skald live to clear it up.
This sums up my feelings on *editing articles *on Wikipedia. I often forego the desire to edit articles, and simply read what other people have written and make my own conclusions based on the references. While I am sure there are exceptions, I hate the fact that many Wikipedia admins have a poor grasp of the topic they are moderating. It turns would-be adults into petulant children and, consequently, the chorus of reason in those discussions are drowned out by the thunder of the status quo.
- Honesty
Can’t we just assume that any topic of any note whatsoever has not only been mentioned in a TV, movie, song, web comic, etc. but probably has so several hundred if not thousands of times? How does that give us any meaningful knowledge about anything? Listing a bunch of random examples of pop culture references in what’s supposed to be a serious encyclopedia article is just idiotic.
Now, certainly that sort of trivia can be interesting, but those people who like it so much need to realize that that’s not what Wikipedia is for. They should really go off and create a new wiki for miscellaneous trivia, and then everyone can be happy.
Huh. I clicked on that link and my computer collapsed in upon itself.
When they edit scholarly or technical articles anonymously. If you expect to be takes as a serious source of information, sign your damned name to it. I’ve done hundreds of edits and written several articles, and they all have my name on them. That way if people want to confirm whether I am a reputable source for that information, it’s easy to do.
I also hate when people revert changes without explaining why, or just put in something like “wrong.”
The only thing that sometimes pisses me off on there is the huge deal they make out of sources.
Yeah, it’s always a good thing to have your things sourced, but sometimes the arguments that come up, for example, when someone dies, is just absurd.
About ten people will post links to articles…but ah, they can’t be used, they’re not a repudible source. Okay, well, I can understand that.
But then people post sources like the BBC and MSNBC…
Ohhh, but they can’t be used since they’re just reporting the RUMOR that the person has died.
Wait what? Now CNN is reporting that he/she is is apparently dead? Well, can’t use that either. Can’t have the “apparently” in there. They MUST SAY that the person is dead, dead, deader than all tarnation and never to rise again.
I mean really, I can understand waiting and even having it 100 percent verified but there are SOME editors on wikipedia that, even in the face of 100 percent confirmity, will hold out and say “no, no, no, no! We can’t use that. We must wait until the relatives of the deceased actually hold a freaking press conference and they break in with the news on the daytime soaps just to announce it worldwide.”*
*slight hyperbole, but I have seen editors that refuse to keep edits on an article, even in the midst of PERFECTLY GOOD, VERIFIABLE sources.
Sheesh.
So it’s the awkward parenthetical?
Good thing I save those for blog posts & message boards.
I use deliberately awkward parentheticals in fiction sometimes for comic effect. They don’t belong in an encyclopedia.
You’re one to talk. :dubious:
it’s a thread about things that piss you off, why wouldn’t it belong in the pit?
Insufficient vehemence. My OP was fairly calm; I don’t think any of the responses were anything other than calm. But I don’t care enough to complain more than passive-aggressively.