Wikipedia advice

I’ve written a couple of articles (on fairly trivial subjects) for Wiki. On the whole they’ve been un-tampered with.

However, one has had two very important (IMO) paragraphs removed, with no explanation, by an unregistered contributor. How should I handle this? I’ve placed a request asking for explanation. If I don’t get a satisfactory response, should I just add them back in? I can’t really be bothered to get into an argument about it, but I do think the information is relevant.

Add the paragraphs back in. Lather, rinse, repeat.

You can add them back in. If they disappear again, put something on the talk page explaining your rationale for inclusion. Also, check the contributor’s history. He may have moved the information to another entry where it fits better. However, the first thing you need to do is forsake your ownership of the article. (Harder than it sounds.) You may have created it, but it isn’t yours, and should be analyzed objectively.

If the thing keeps going back and forth Wikipedia might lock the page down, but most problems don’t go that far.


I’ve heard grumblings that the Wikipedia has been discredited. I presume the teen/troll/scumbag bunch cought wind of it and are launching a loosely-organized attack.

I hope I’ve been able to do this. One of them was heavily edited, and I agreed that the edits made it a better article.

However, the removed parts I mention is vital to understand the recent history of the place on which I’ve written. The main problem is I don’t know why they were removed - not cross-checked, deemed irrelevant, or what. There is a tiny note to indicate they might have been moved, but I can’t find where.

I’m going to wait for a reply, then add them back.

Honestly, I’d just add them back in right away. AFAIConcerned the onus is on the person who removes the text to explain their action. Since it was made by an unregistered user, with no reason given for the removal, it’s basically an unfair edit. Put it back in.

If it’s removed again, but with a reason, then leave it out and take the discussion to the Talk Page.

      • And thus, another revisionist battle begins…
  • Wikipedia is like asking advice of a total stranger–at any different moment you look, you might get a good answer, you might get a misinformed answer, or you might get an intentionally incorrect answer. Regular print encyclopedias don’t always achieve the first of those perfectly, but they do a lot to reduce the second and third types–because the researchers who compose those answers research for a paycheck, and they risk unemployment if they do consistently poor or intentionally-incorrect work.

Wikipedia is not the end of any research; at best, it is the beginning of research.
Even its creator has revised his own bio multiple times, in violation of his own rules…

Huh? What does that mean?

It’s against the rules to be too personally involved in an article that directly references you, or in any case where you can’t be objective (i.e. I’m sure some hard-line Democrats would have a hard time being objective editing the “George W. Bush” article…ditto Republicans and Clinton). Writing a biography on yourself, even if you’re famous, is a big no-no.

Keeping in mind the three-revert rule, though.