So I check something on Wikipedia and a message pops up that I have a note from another user. O joy. (It’s linked by IP address, since I long ago gave up bothering with a WP account for any purpose.)
A helpful WP ghod with 'levently-billion gold stars or something has reverted a change of mine as “not adhering to a neutral point of view.”
I updated a bottom-of-page link from an obsolete location for a website to the current location. I included the word “comprehensive,” which the site most certainly is. (It has essentially no competing sites of any kind.)
I haven’t run into such problems. And I can understand a user being suspicious of IP edits.
But yeah, use of the word “Comprehensive” seems like a technical violation at best. Also, that seems like something that should be edited rather than reverted wholesale.
Since you edit as an anon, is it possible that the message wasn’t directed at you, and it was referring to a different edit made by someone else who had that IP# before you?
No. I have a stable IP. I also verified the change/revert because I couldn’t believe even the most rules-loving basement troll could find something offensive about updating a URL.
People are addicted to all sorts of things, on and off the internet; Wikipedia, this message board, Facebook, World of Warcraft, etc. Wikipedia is amazingly useful for many, many people around the world and it’s far more comprehensive than just about any other reference source out there. Could it stand improvement? Sure, of course, but some of the issues, like the one described by the OP, are a result of its decentralized nature.
Making sure a followup link on an article is current - instead of pointing to a long-dead 404 location - is “being addicted”?
Okay.
Anyway, the WPghod graciously admitted that it was the phrase “most comprehensive site” that offended his/her/its sensibilities, and leaving it just “comprehensive site” as before would allow the URL update to pass.
Why, exactly, this paragon of paragons couldn’t simply edit the reference to suit that whim… well, it’s a mystery.
I work with someone whose job is doing roughly that, but for internal websites: reviewing and approving/rejecting pending modifications. Until directly spoken to by yours truly he’d also reject rather than fix minor issues (expir. dates way out past the event date – so just change the date to something more appropriate, instead of rejecting outright FFS!!) because it was one fewer mouseclick.
Wikipedia has no process in place to qualify anyone as an expert in a topic, so “I am my own cite” wouldn’t work. It’s the reason for the insistence on cites for everything.
As if it were unique there. Outside of the e-chat world, I participate in a number of… colloquia populated by university rats, who are unable to understand the concept of an opinion that isn’t citing someone else’s work. To them - and we are not talking undergrads, here - “research” consists of looking up other people’s answers and lining them up in a slightly new way.
But WP’s inability to deal with “original research” is its greatest weakness.
I feel like the Wiki-ers have also invaded TV Tropes. Long ago, TV Tropes used to be a fun place to edit and add examples. They specifically say on their home page “We’re way more informal”. So I was having fun, adding examples. I’d add a lot of Bollywood movies and stuff like that.
Then I started getting dinged for stuff exactly like Wiki*. The “neutral point of view” thing from the OP is a great example - I’d get dinged because people would say my comment wasn’t factual enough. It really pissed me off and made me cease editing. I don’t have time to argue back and forth. I don’t care about arguing.
I thought I read something somewhere that the people editing Wiki were like, 85% young white males. Is that still the case? How do you get the demographics on editors, anyway?
*I have no idea how people think editing Wiki is fun. I remember many years ago finding that a relatively famous book did not have a Wiki page. I thought, I’ll make it! The steps involved in posting a page about a fictional book were ridiculous. I never tried again.
But you’ve got to see the necessity for banning “original research”, right? Because otherwise any asshole can claim they’re right and cite themselves as the authority. Yes, it occasionally does stymie a few editors who really are legitimate authorities in their field and who could be cited as authorities if there wasn’t a rule against citing yourself. But the alternative is too horrible to consider.