# Things Wikipedia "editors" do that annoy you **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 10, 2006, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867 "2006-10-10T00:05:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![cckerberos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@cckerberos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cckerberos)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/21 "2006-10-10T10:40:51Z")
[QUOTE=DirkGntly] I hate that people seem to consider it a reliable source as a reference. When I see someone use Wikipedia as a cite for a factual reference, it irritates me to no end, because it is a constantly-editable reference, it lends itself to not being a reliable source. [/QUOTE] The number of undergraduates who think that a Wikipedia article is an acceptable reference for a research paper is absolutely mindblowing. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/22 "2006-10-10T12:39:18Z")
Jumping the gun on deletions and slapping stupid maintenance tags are my current Wikipeeves. I started an article the other night. It was admittedly very brief and non-detailed and I planned to expand it within 24 hours. Within two minutes it was speedy deleted. I recreated it and even noted in the log that I was going to expand it. It got speedy deleted again almost instantly. I ended up creating it a third time and deliberately put information in it that was false solely for the purpose of making the article longer and therefore less likely to be speedy deleted in 28 seconds. They left that one alone and I expanded it the next day. I wrote another article and within three minutes it was tagged both with a “nothing links here” tag and a “an editor questions the notability of this article” tag. First off, how do these people even _find_ these articles within three minutes of their creation? Secondly, have none of them heard of the concept of patience? It hurts nothing to have a factually correct but very short article up for a day. If you’re really that concerned about having a small article up, then watch it for a day and if it isn’t elaborated upon, _then_ speedy delete it. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/23 "2006-10-10T15:01:04Z")
> [@](#): > > Of course you shouldn’t have to cite things like that, but I agree with him that it’s POV. Just state that she gave birth at 51 and leave it to the reader to decide whether that is remarkable or not. There are far too many adjectives in the average Wikipedia article! But sometimes judgement is necessary to convey information. If we stuck strictly to the facts we would have to say “F. Scott Fitzgerald is a 20th century American author” and “Harold Robbins is a 20th century American author” without ever mentioning that one has a much better reputation than the other because that would be an opinion even if it’s shared by 99% of informed readers. So what happens when I write an article about an obscure subject? Suppose I say that Sven Olafson and Olaf Svenson were two 10th century Swedish poets. Which one was a hack and which one was a genius? > [@](#): > > I also share the feeling that there is, in general, too much pop culture minutae on Wikipedia. A Survivor page should be just a couple of paragraphs, followed by links to some good web sites about the show. Every article I have seen about TV shows, sportspeople or teams, rock bands, etc. seems to go on for pages, reciting trivial details that only somebody who is already a hard-core fan would care about, and liberally peppered with words like “legendary” and “amazing”. Leave all that stuff to the fan sites. So what? If I want to write an article about every member of my favorite hockey team, why not? You may not care about hockey but some people do. And some of them are going to want to look up the players to find out what town they were born in and where they went to school. Why is it that if you can name every top-40 single from 1996 you’re a hard-core fan who’s obsessed with trivia but if you can name every Nobel laureate from 1996 you’re a well-informed person with deep knowledge? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/24 "2006-10-10T15:03:01Z")
> [@](#): > > First off, how do these people even find these articles within three minutes of their creation? There’s a feature that lets you see the fifty most recent edits and which highlights newly created articles. Some people use this feature to pounce on new articles like yours. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/25 "2006-10-10T19:48:36Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] There’s a feature that lets you see the fifty most recent edits and which highlights newly created articles. Some people use this feature to pounce on new articles like yours. [/QUOTE] You mean Wikipedia actually _facilitates_ people being dickholes? That makes me sad. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/26 "2006-10-10T20:23:28Z")
[QUOTE=cckerberos] The number of undergraduates who think that a Wikipedia article is an acceptable reference for a research paper is absolutely mindblowing. [/QUOTE] Well, it is. Depending on the fact & circumstances of course. I agree that often it’s not a good reference, but it certainly can link to an acceptable one. ---
**Author:** ![naotalbah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7c8e57/32.png) [@naotalbah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naotalbah)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2006, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/27 "2006-10-10T23:29:28Z")
After hearing Weird Al’s “White and Nerdy” I immediately set off to cross one more nerdism off my list: my first Wiki edit. I found an article about an American, and I edited “judgement” (British Spelling) to “judgment” (American Spelling). It was gone in less than 30 seconds. Sigh. I’m going to spend tonight with a roll of bubble wrap instead. ---
**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:** [October 11, 2006, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/28 "2006-10-11T00:07:13Z")
[QUOTE=Otto] First off, how do these people even _find_ these articles within three minutes of their creation? Secondly, have none of them heard of the concept of patience? It hurts nothing to have a factually correct but very short article up for a day. If you’re really that concerned about having a small article up, then watch it for a day and if it isn’t elaborated upon, _then_ speedy delete it. [/QUOTE] If one has a My Yahoo! home page, it can be set up to alert you to recently added Wikipedia articles. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/29 "2006-10-11T01:56:14Z")
> [@](#): > > You mean Wikipedia actually facilitates people being dickholes? That makes me sad I’ll admit I’ve sometimes jumped on new articles. But I’ve never deleted one. If it looks bad, I try to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. For example if I found a new article **Little Nemo** that said: > [@](#): > > got voted out on survivor this week I’d change it to: > [@](#): > > **Little Nemo** is a player on the 2006 season of the American reality show _Survivor_. He was the fourth person voted off the show on the episode broadcast on October 7, 2006. You see? I try to address a problem by adding not subtracting. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/30 "2006-10-11T02:20:15Z")
[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer] Hey! Don’t you _dare_ slam Usenet! It is, after all, the home of rec.arts.books.tolkien, and talk.origins, and tons of chicken recipies… Um, I mean PORN! Yes, definitely porn. I’m WWWAAYYYY too manly to go online to download chicken recipes. [/QUOTE] See, now I wonder why Tolkien didn’t include any chicken recipes. He included everything else, including the creation of the world and all the races. So why is there not a good chicken recipe in one of the appendices or something? Imagine all the money Christopher Tolkien could make with a Middle Earth cookbook. Quite frankly, I’m not sure I want to see LotR porn. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/31 "2006-10-11T03:55:02Z")
[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer] Yeah, I know what you’re thinking–“No one’s more obvious than you, Skaldie, not even [SDMBer name deleted for obvious reasons]”-- but I lose patience. [/QUOTE] Nice try, but we all know you were talking about **Fabulous Creature.** ---
**Author:** ![Snooooopy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee7513/32.png) [@Snooooopy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snooooopy)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/32 "2006-10-11T05:15:02Z")
I guess I’m a little annoyed when I come across a page wherein someone has identified a sentence that is incorrect, but instead of fixing the error, merely adds a sentence right afterward mentioning why it is an error. Since you’re bothering to do anything at all, just go all the way and make the fix! ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/33 "2006-10-11T06:12:46Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] Well, it is. Depending on the fact & circumstances of course. I agree that often it’s not a good reference, but it certainly can link to an acceptable one. [/QUOTE] If it links to an acceptable reference, then the reference source isn’t Wikipedia…it’s whatever source it links to. A Wikipedia article itself is pretty much never an acceptable reference for an academic paper. ---
**Author:** ![Alive\_At\_Both\_Ends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/73ab20/32.png) [@Alive\_At\_Both\_Ends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alive_At_Both_Ends)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 9:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/34 "2006-10-11T09:49:22Z")
What annoys me about Wikipedia’s apologists is that they reply to all complaints about accuracy with the mantra “Well if it’s wrong, why don’t you correct it?” I go to a reference source to \*find out \*information, not to \*give \*it. If I can’t trust the information I find there, it’s useless, even if it’s actually correct. ---
**Author:** ![Lightray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightray/32/391_2.png) [@Lightray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightray)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/35 "2006-10-11T13:22:57Z")
[QUOTE=asterion] Quite frankly, I’m not sure I want to see LotR porn. [/QUOTE] I was going to link to some LotR wingfic, just to prove that there’s stuff much, much worse than LotR porn. But, I thought some might not know what wingfic is, so I thought to check Wikipedia. Which redirects from wingfic to [slashfic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingfic), which article is a hoot and a half. Good Lord. I especially like the touch of adding the giant-sized “/” graphic, to show what a “slash” is. Really helps explain the concept, doesn’t it? Anyway, now I’m at work, and no way I’m googling LotR wingfic here, so I’m afraid y’all’ll have to find it on your own. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/36 "2006-10-11T14:36:30Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] If it links to an acceptable reference, then the reference source isn’t Wikipedia…it’s whatever source it links to. A Wikipedia article itself is pretty much never an acceptable reference for an academic paper. [/QUOTE] Why not? It can have cites, references, and footnotes. True, the facts may be incorrect, but the facts can be incorrect in a book too. Wiki can be baised- but so can a book. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/37 "2006-10-11T20:39:27Z")
My biggest gripe is when I’ve edited Wikipedia articles for grammar, spelling, etc… because they look like they were written by semi-literate cretins, and then, those semi-literate cretins RE-EDIT the article to re-fuck-it-up. It just kills me that these people have the temerity to go re-edit articles with the intention of making the subject and verb no longer agree, or to make the sentence structure extremely tortured and hard to understand, when the article said the same damn thing, but made good sense to anyone who actually understands English. On a related note, it also bugs me when people routinely present opinion-based comments as factual information in articles, but I usually edit the sentence to reflect that, and it usually sticks. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Slant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c57346/32.png) [@Mr.Slant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Slant)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/38 "2006-10-11T21:07:42Z")
[QUOTE=asterion] See, now I wonder why Tolkien didn’t include any chicken recipes. He included everything else, including the creation of the world and all the races. So why is there not a good chicken recipe in one of the appendices or something? Imagine all the money Christopher Tolkien could make with a Middle Earth cookbook. Quite frankly, I’m not sure I want to see LotR porn. [/QUOTE] Wouldn’t matter, I’m not going to choose cooking from a recipe written in late modern high elven over downloading cave troll porn. No way. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2006, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/39 "2006-10-11T21:25:59Z")
[QUOTE=DrDeth] Why not? It can have cites, references, and footnotes. True, the facts may be incorrect, but the facts can be incorrect in a book too. Wiki can be baised- but so can a book. [/QUOTE] The lack of traceability. One of the main purposes of academic references is for the reader to be able to go back to your sources and follow the routes through which specific pieces of information have travelled. With a source which can be changed in real time by anybody, this cannot be done with any reliability. (FWIW, it’s the same reasoning which prevents us editing our own posts on this board.) Yes, before anyone says so, this means that there’s a difficulty with using _any_ online source as a reference. But these are not nearly as great as with Wikipedia. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2006, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/40 "2006-10-12T00:04:42Z")
> [@](#): > > On a related note, it also bugs me when people routinely present opinion-based comments as factual information in articles, but I usually edit the sentence to reflect that, and it usually sticks. Then let me ask you, do you think 51 is a remarkable age to give birth? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867.md?page=3)