# On hating Wack-o-pedia, again... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 19, 2015, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060 "2015-04-19T19:27:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/1 "2015-04-19T19:27:15Z")
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.) WPee-ers need to Get. A. Fucking. Life. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/2 "2015-04-19T19:42:37Z")
This may have been linked to before. Wikipedia has a major editor problem. > [@](#): > > In 2006, only about 6 percent of “quality” new editors had their contributions rejected—a.k.a. “reverted” in Wikipedia lingo. In 2010, the number of contributions by new editors were being reverted at a rate of 1-in-4 by senior editors and the site’s own automated response systems. > **[Nobody wants to edit Wikipedia anymore](http://www.dailydot.com/business/wikipedia-editors-decline-wikimedia-fellows/)** > > Wikipedia leaders and social science researchers documented a drastic decline in the retention of new editors over the last five years. I believe it’s gotten worse since that article. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/3 "2015-04-19T19:53:33Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > WPee-ers need to Get. A. Fucking. Life. The 'pedia IS their “life.” Petty little peons with a little patch of fiefdom to call their own. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/4 "2015-04-19T20:26:26Z")
So I just created the dead link on the site, with a redirect page blaming the idiot WP editor. Revenge… is a dish needing lots of sriracha sauce. ---
**Author:** ![Penfeather](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penfeather/32/384_2.png) [@Penfeather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Penfeather)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/5 "2015-04-19T20:51:50Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > WPee-ers need to Get. A. Fucking. Life. Oddly enough, if you clicked on that as a link that it would direct you to “Irony”. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/6 "2015-04-19T21:03:46Z")
Like I’ve said, they have the policy to deal with it, but they won’t enforce it. [WP:OWNing](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles) an article should result in a ban on editing that article. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/7 "2015-04-19T21:16:03Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > 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.) > > WPee-ers need to Get. A. Fucking. Life. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Ponderoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ponderoid/32/19221_2.png) [@Ponderoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ponderoid)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2015, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/8 "2015-04-19T23:59:32Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2015, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/9 "2015-04-20T01:08:09Z")
> [@Ponderoid](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2015, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/10 "2015-04-20T19:42:15Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > So I just created the dead link on the site, with a redirect page blaming the idiot WP editor. > > Revenge… is a dish needing lots of sriracha sauce. > [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > 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. Some people need to Get. A. Fucking. Life. There is more to life than being addicted to Wikipedia. ---
**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:** [April 20, 2015, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/11 "2015-04-20T19:46:57Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2015, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/12 "2015-04-20T20:20:25Z")
I! Am! Kirok! ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/13 "2015-04-21T15:12:33Z")
> [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > Some people need to Get. A. Fucking. Life. There is more to life than being addicted to Wikipedia. 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. ---
**Author:** ![purplehorseshoe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/purplehorseshoe/32/2996_2.png) [@purplehorseshoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/purplehorseshoe)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/14 "2015-04-21T16:55:49Z")
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. Laziness is an awesome force sometimes. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/15 "2015-04-21T18:00:31Z")
Does, “I am my own cite.” work at Wikipedia? ---
**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:** [April 21, 2015, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/16 "2015-04-21T19:15:54Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/17 "2015-04-21T19:40:29Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/18 "2015-04-21T19:40:57Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/19 "2015-04-21T20:05:09Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > 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. Like “Lord Dorwin” from Asimov’s “Foundation”? [Foundation, Foundation and Empire, Second Foundation: Introduction by ... - Isaac Asimov - Google Books](https://books.google.com/books?id=j2f6L1vuR3kC&pg=PA54&dq=lord+dorwin+foundation&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Uq02VYrEDcnksAT_mIDwBQ&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=lord%20dorwin%20foundation&f=false) ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060/20 "2015-04-21T20:36:14Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > But WP’s inability to deal with “original research” is its greatest weakness. 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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-hating-wack-o-pedia-again/718060.md?page=2)