# 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:** 18\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2006, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/41 "2006-10-12T01:07:45Z")
Yes, I do think it’s remarkable. That wouldn’t have bugged me in the least. What bugs me is when there’s a mostly fact-based article, say one about Alexander the Great, and the article talks about how he was gay, without actually saying that there is some controversy over this subject. - That’s a hypothetical example, but I’ve seen a lot of them in the past; I just can’t recall a definite example at the moment. ---
**Author:** ![FisherQueen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/58f4c7/32.png) [@FisherQueen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FisherQueen)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2006, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/42 "2006-10-12T10:56:48Z")
[QUOTE=Otto] You mean Wikipedia actually _facilitates_ people being dickholes? That makes me sad. [/QUOTE] I patrol new pages on Wikipedia. I tag pages to be deleted every single time I log on. But I don’t think I’m a dickhole. There are enormous numbers of pages created every hour by bored high school students that read something like: > [@](#): > > **Mr. Smith** > Mr Smith is a fag nobody likes him at school After deleting twenty or thirty of these, I’ve occasionally tagged something for deletion that, if I’d taken the time to read it more closely, I would have realized was just a crappy entry for something legitimate. There’s a process people can use to appeal the deletion, or to ask for a deleted article to be resurrected, but I felt badly anyway, the times I’ve done it. So if I was deleting stupid vandalism, got triggerhappy, and tagged your article because it looked a little like high-school vandals wrote it, I apologize. I really try not to do it, and all you need to do is message an administrator and explain why it should be brought back. ---
**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, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/43 "2006-10-12T19:53:04Z")
> [@](#): > > What bugs me is when there’s a mostly fact-based article, say one about Alexander the Great, and the article talks about how he was gay, without actually saying that there is some controversy over this subject. I once ran into a dispute once over _The Lion King_. A person had written that the movie was based on _Hamlet_. I amended this - I kept the part that said Disney has stated the movie was based on _Hamlet_ but I added a line stating that there are many simularities between the movie and the Japanese TV series _The Jungle Emperor_ and many people believe the movie was partially based on the series. This turned into a controversy. I provided numerous cites (including one to _The Straight Dope_) to show that this was a common belief (I never claimed it was a proven fact). But the original author said that unless Disney admitted the series was an inspiration for the movie we could not include a rumor. I pointed out the Disney had obvious reasons to deny the fact, regardless of whether or not it was true, and should not be accepted as the sole authority on the subject. The dispute went on in typical fashion. The two of us could not agree on the issue and posted back and forth trying to persuade the other. Meanwhile, nobody else seemed to be aware of the discussion (or maybe they were just too intelligent to care) so we never got a third person to break the tie. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2006, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/44 "2006-10-12T21:02:59Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] This turned into a controversy. I provided numerous cites (including one to _The Straight Dope_) to show that this was a common belief (I never claimed it was a proven fact). But the original author said that unless Disney admitted the series was an inspiration for the movie we could not include a rumor. . [/QUOTE] I am afraid they were right, and you were wrong. Wiki is not the place for UL, even “possible but unconfirmed ULs”. (I admit there were quite a few similarities, but I chalk it up to coincidence myself) I would have said “see Snopes for several interesting Urban Legends about this film”, and provided that link as a cite. I doubt if anyone could object to that. ---
**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, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/45 "2006-10-12T21:14:09Z")
There’s considerable evidence that 6,000,000 Jews were killed during the Holocaust. But a Nazi spokesman has stated, “I know nuffink!” In light of this **Official Statement** , we can only assume that connections between the unexplained disappearance of six million people and previously announced Nazi policies on this issue are coincidental. ---
**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, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/46 "2006-10-12T21:19:29Z")
But seriously, I never claimed that Disney rip-offed _The Jungle Emperor_. I stated that “many people believe they did” and “there are numerous coincidences between the two” - these are factual provable citable statements that were directly relevant to the subject being discussed. How could their inclusion not be justified? By only one principle - the belief that only “authorities” can produce “facts”. Some people accept the idea that truth is only produced by an official announcement. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2006, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/47 "2006-10-12T22:11:08Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] There’s considerable evidence that 6,000,000 Jews were killed during the Holocaust. But a Nazi spokesman has stated, “I know nuffink!” In light of this **Official Statement** , we can only assume that connections between the unexplained disappearance of six million people and previously announced Nazi policies on this issue are coincidental. [/QUOTE] You are _so_ Godwined. ---
**Author:** ![Ximenean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/aca169/32.png) [@Ximenean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ximenean)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2006, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/48 "2006-10-12T22:31:32Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] […] these are factual provable citable statements that were directly relevant to the subject being discussed. How could their inclusion not be justified? By only one principle - the belief that only “authorities” can produce “facts”. [/QUOTE] Or by the principle that it is good to be concise and not batter the reader over the head with endless detail. If I look up a Wikipedia article about The Lion King, it’s because I don’t know much about the film and wish to get an overview. Having to wade through reams of extraneous factoids, added apropos of nothing in particular by passing Lion King fans, works against that. ---
**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 12, 2006, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/49 "2006-10-12T23:27:06Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] Nice try, but we all know you were talking about **Fabulous Creature.** [/QUOTE] Incredibly, I wasn’t trotting out that particular joke. But common sense dictates that I not name posters I think “obnoxious,” save in the Pit. [SIZE=1]Fabulous Creaturewas kind of a wanker, though. And way too self-referential for anyone’s taste. And he smelled funny./[size] ---
**Author:** ![Dan\_Norder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4af34b/32.png) [@Dan\_Norder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dan_Norder)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2006, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/50 "2006-10-12T23:50:43Z")
I hate people who know nothing about how encyclopedias are supposed to be written who suddenly get the idea they should go spend their time trying to edit one. And from the comments Little Nemo is making here, it’s very clear that he shouldn’t be editing there. In fact, some of the conflicts he talks about sound like they might be ones where I was one of the people undoing his edits. Like this comment: “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.” Then cite some freaking sources already, otherwise every bozo who shows up can just claim 99% of “informed” readers would agree with him. This is a pretty fundamental concept. And, yes, The whole Lion King example given was clearly one where he was in the wrong. And Survivor and other televiosn shows shouldn;t be filled up with subtrivia… If something can’t meet the “who would care in ten years” rule, it doesn’t belong there. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2006, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/51 "2006-10-12T23:55:34Z")
[QUOTE=Usram] Or by the principle that it is good to be concise and not batter the reader over the head with endless detail. If I look up a Wikipedia article about The Lion King, it’s because I don’t know much about the film and wish to get an overview. Having to wade through reams of extraneous factoids, added apropos of nothing in particular by passing Lion King fans, works against that. [/QUOTE] That’s what articles should be split up appropriately so that a casual reader who, say, wants a plot summary can click on that link in the TOC. As to the specific example, I agree with the view that “many people believe” type statements don’t have a really strong place in an article. Such information can be presented in a factual manner, along the lines of, well, how it’s done now in the Lion King [article](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_King#Story_origin): > [@Wikipedia](#): > > The Lion King was claimed to be the first animated Disney film to not be based on an already-existing story, although the accuracy of this has become disputed. The Lion King bears a striking resemblance to a famous Japanese anime television show, Kimba the White Lion, and claims have been made that The Lion King was inspired by it.[29] Starting with the protagonist’s name (Simba/Kimba), most characters in Kimba have an analogue in The Lion King, and various individual scenes are nearly identical in composition and camera angle. Disney’s official stance is that any resemblance is coincidental, and directors Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff claimed that they were well into the development process before the Kimba similarity was identified. The family of Osamu Tezuka, Kimba’s creator, has not filed suit against Disney. For further details, see [Kimba The White Lion controversy.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimba_the_White_Lion#The_Lion_King_controversy) > > The filmmakers, however, admitted that the story of The Lion King was inspired by the 1942 Disney animated film Bambi, Joseph the Dreamer and Exodus from the Bible, and William Shakespeare’s Hamlet.[6] Christopher Vogler, in his book The Writer’s Journey: Mythic Structure For Writers, described how Disney approached him with a copy of Hamlet asking how to improve the plot of The Lion King by incorporating ideas from Shakespeare. [30] Relationships between the two plots include: The brother to the king (Scar to Mufasa; Claudius to King Hamlet) kills the king (this occurs before the play Hamlet begins). The rightful heir (Simba/Hamlet) does not avenge his father’s death at first. Later, at the urging of his father’s ghost, the prince recalls his duty (although Hamlet vacillates between action and inaction unlike Simba) and ultimately returns from exile to kill his uncle (although Hamlet was not in exile at the time, and Simba does not personally kill Scar). which seems to cover the point (albeit with an awkwardly-written first sentence) in a factual manner. ---
**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 13, 2006, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/52 "2006-10-13T03:32:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Or by the principle that it is good to be concise and not batter the reader over the head with endless detail. If I look up a Wikipedia article about The Lion King, it’s because I don’t know much about the film and wish to get an overview. Having to wade through reams of extraneous factoids, added apropos of nothing in particular by passing Lion King fans, works against that. The article I was referring to was [List of Disney theatrical animated features](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_theatrical_animated_features). At the time (although I see this is no longer true) each film had, along with its title and date, and entry on “Material Based On” in which a brief mention was made of the source material for the film. I figured information about what source material _The Lion King_ was based legitimately belonged in an already established article about what source material _The Lion King_ was based upon. > [@](#): > > I hate people who know nothing about how encyclopedias are supposed to be written who suddenly get the idea they should go spend their time trying to edit one. > > And from the comments Little Nemo is making here, it’s very clear that he shouldn’t be editing there. In fact, some of the conflicts he talks about sound like they might be ones where I was one of the people undoing his edits. > > Like this comment: “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.” Then cite some freaking sources already, otherwise every bozo who shows up can just claim 99% of “informed” readers would agree with him. This is a pretty fundamental concept. > > And, yes, The whole Lion King example given was clearly one where he was in the wrong. And Survivor and other televiosn shows shouldn;t be filled up with subtrivia… If something can’t meet the “who would care in ten years” rule, it doesn’t belong there. I can’t say I hate people who know nothing about how an encyclopedia should be written. But they do sometimes annoy me when I’m trying to work and they keep insisting on getting in the way. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect and organize information. As much information as possible. It’s a big project; bigger than any one person could possibly handle. But some people are willing to work on a project like that because they know that other people are working alongside them and the result will be something better than any one individual could have made. But some people have another vision; they want an encyclopedia they can read from cover to cover and then say afterwards, “I already knew all that. I’m so smart.” These people, by necessity, have to whittle down any encyclopedia to a size they can manage. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2006, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/53 "2006-10-15T23:58:47Z")
They keep reverting my correction to the article on _Around The World In Eighty Days_ regarding the balloon that was used in the movie, but does not appear in the book. The article says it was a hot-air balloon, but it was actually a gas balloon (hydrogen or helium). “Hot-air balloon” has become synonymous with “any balloon big enough to carry people”. I try to fight this ignorance, but it won’t stay fought. ---
**Author:** ![Mayo\_Speaks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c57346/32.png) [@Mayo\_Speaks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mayo_Speaks)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2006, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/54 "2006-10-16T00:58:26Z")
Here’s what bugs me: 1. Excessive use of the (citation needed) thingy. I’m convinced that people insert them to make the statement seem less credible. 2. Always linking dates. It’s always > [@](#): > > John Doe was born in Louisville, Kentucky on October 15, 2006. And if one clicks on the date, they’re taken to a random collection of facts that have very little to do with each other. What a waste of time. ---
**Author:** ![diggleblop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac91a4/32.png) [@diggleblop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/diggleblop)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2006, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/55 "2006-10-16T01:14:48Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] I’ve pretty much quit contributing to Wikipedia because I got tired of fighting the erasers - the people who are continuosly trying to “improve” Wikipedia by eliminating everything they consider “bad”. In my opinion most of these people are unable to add anything of value so they are forced to make their mark by subtracting the work of others. I got to the point where I found I was spending as much effort trying to keep people from deleting information as I was spending adding new information. And it became too disheartening for me to spend hours writing or revising an article knowing that some fool would probably soon come along to delete it in a few seconds because of some voice in his head. [/QUOTE] Ding, ding, ding ! Exactly why I don’t even really go there any longer, let alone contribute. I don’t know who those idiots are, but they seriously don’t know what they’re doing. ---
**Author:** ![naotalbah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7c8e57/32.png) [@naotalbah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naotalbah)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2006, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/56 "2006-10-16T18:39:58Z")
I assumed the “stupid links” like the date and year were to up the search results for Wiki no matter what is searched for. It makes marketing sense. I post to a work related board with my company’s webpage in my sig for that reason. ---
**Author:** ![whitetho](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whitetho/32/1059_2.png) [@whitetho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whitetho)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2006, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/57 "2006-10-17T00:21:38Z")
Here’s an interesting development: [Wikipedia founder plans rival](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e62ce8a4-5d3e-11db-9d15-0000779e2340.html) > [@](#): > > One of the founders of Wikipedia is days away from launching a rival to the collaborative internet encyclopaedia, in an attempt to bring a more orderly approach to organising knowledge online. > > The latest venture from Larry Sanger [[http://citizendium.org/](http://citizendium.org/)], who helped create Wikipedia in 2001, is intended to bring more order to this creative chaos by drawing on traditional measures of authority. Though still open to submissions from anyone, the power to authorise articles will be given to editors who can prove their expertise, as well as a group of volunteer “constables”, charged with keeping the peace between warring interests. ---
**Author:** ![Neptunian\_Slug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce7236/32.png) [@Neptunian\_Slug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neptunian_Slug)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2006, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867/58 "2006-10-17T02:18:27Z")
[QUOTE=whitetho] Here’s an interesting development: [Wikipedia founder plans rival](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e62ce8a4-5d3e-11db-9d15-0000779e2340.html) [/QUOTE] That’s a fascinating alternative. I don’t know if this can overcome Wikipedia’s overwhelming first-mover advantage, but I’ll probably give it a try for a while. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/things-wikipedia-editors-do-that-annoy-you/375867.md?page=2)