HomeHome  CalendarCalendar  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Wikipedia Woes

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
NoCoPilot

avatar

Posts : 11193
Join date : 2013-01-16
Age : 63
Location : Seattle

PostSubject: Wikipedia Woes   Fri Apr 07, 2017 8:15 pm

I like to reference Wikipedia when researching, the articles are generally well-written and reliable. Being "user submissions" you have to take them with a grain of salt and every so often you run across an article that's total bullshit or total self-promotion.

But you learn to gauge.

Which is why it PISSES ME OFF that some of the Wiki editors -- Wiki has a few people, dunno if they're paid or volunteer, but they oversee things and try to keep things tidy. Good idea, right? Trouble is, some of them get it into their heads that they have this GREAT POWER, and they go around pissing in other peoples' cornflakes.

I've had 3 or 4 articles deleted -- without preamble -- because they didn't meet "notability guidelines." Only problem is, there ARE no "notability guidelines." Notability is defined as "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The trouble is, you can see, "significant coverage" is undefined, "reliable sources" is undefined and "independent sources" is undefined. It basically all comes down to one editor's opinion.

Uninformed opinions, in all my cases. Editors unfamiliar with the subject matter, and too busy to do any research. They just unilaterally decide "I've never heard of this so it can't be important."

Granted, Wikipedia is a piece of shit user-edited encyclopedia that doesn't mean fuck-all to anybody. Getting deleted from Wikipedia means nothing to nobody.

But it still pisses me off to spend a week or two researching and writing an article, only to have some dickwad remove it because they're feeling like exercising some great power.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
_Howard
Admin
avatar

Posts : 7397
Join date : 2013-01-16
Age : 73
Location : California

PostSubject: Re: Wikipedia Woes   Sat Apr 08, 2017 1:54 pm

Why don't you post the articles here for a "peer review"? I promise we'll be kind.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
NoCoPilot

avatar

Posts : 11193
Join date : 2013-01-16
Age : 63
Location : Seattle

PostSubject: Re: Wikipedia Woes   Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:36 pm

It's not peer review I need. Thanks anyway
Back to top Go down
View user profile
_Howard
Admin
avatar

Posts : 7397
Join date : 2013-01-16
Age : 73
Location : California

PostSubject: Re: Wikipedia Woes   Sun Apr 09, 2017 1:27 pm

I used the wrong term there, although it was meant to be tongue in cheek.
I would not presume to critique your writing without invitation.

As I read your post, I get the idea that you are not sure of the reason for the articles' rejection. I thought that perhaps we might provide some insight into Wikipedia's reasoning. That's all.

You mentioned weeks of research and the editor's response of "I've never heard of this...". Is it original research that you have done? If so, you're out of luck, as Wikipedia has a strict No Original Research policy.

Back to top Go down
View user profile
richard09

avatar

Posts : 2473
Join date : 2013-01-16

PostSubject: Re: Wikipedia Woes   Sun Apr 09, 2017 2:47 pm

I would second the idea of providing an opinion from a (relatively) unbiased point of view. It doesn't really matter if it's something I know nothing about, as then I can supply the pov of the typical wikipedia reader (snark snark).
Back to top Go down
View user profile
_Howard
Admin
avatar

Posts : 7397
Join date : 2013-01-16
Age : 73
Location : California

PostSubject: Re: Wikipedia Woes   Sun Apr 09, 2017 2:53 pm

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, Richard. The author and the reader often approach a writing very differently, especially if the author has significantly greater knowledge of the subject.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
NoCoPilot

avatar

Posts : 11193
Join date : 2013-01-16
Age : 63
Location : Seattle

PostSubject: Re: Wikipedia Woes   Sun Apr 09, 2017 6:15 pm

I've written enough Wikipedia articles (a dozen or so) to know about the neutral voice and no original research and sufficient references and as many Wikipedia links as possible.

The articles I was pissed about were somewhat specialist, and I'm quite sure the Wiki editor who took it upon herself to delete them -- without discussion and without anyone else agreeing to it -- undoubtedly had never heard of the subject matter.

In my somewhat biased opinion that is not sufficient grounds.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
_Howard
Admin
avatar

Posts : 7397
Join date : 2013-01-16
Age : 73
Location : California

PostSubject: Re: Wikipedia Woes   Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:18 am

Change the titles of the articles and submit them again. Maybe the next guy will pass them.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
NoCoPilot

avatar

Posts : 11193
Join date : 2013-01-16
Age : 63
Location : Seattle

PostSubject: Re: Wikipedia Woes   Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:16 pm

The title of an article is its subject matter.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
NoCoPilot

avatar

Posts : 11193
Join date : 2013-01-16
Age : 63
Location : Seattle

PostSubject: Re: Wikipedia Woes   Thu Aug 03, 2017 2:51 pm

And it's not just an editor that has to "pass them." You can create a new article and post it all by yourself, without anyone reviewing it.

However, at any point down the road, a dickwad self-appointed "editor" can delete your submission for notability or any number of other ill-defined shortcomings. I had one article, went through a lot of hassle in 2009 to avoid deletion, finally got approval and it's been a popular article ever since.

Then this week a new dickwad emerges and decides to delete it. I said, wait a minute, we had this discussion in 2009. Didn't you read the history? "A lot has changed in 8 years," he replied.

I said, "Is this youir personal opinion, or can you show me some documentation?"

His response was to continue with the deletion.

Probably lives in his mother's basement and this is the first real power he's ever had. It keeps real SMEs (subject matter experts) from wasting their time on Wikipedia though, letting the dimwits and dickwads run things.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
NoCoPilot

avatar

Posts : 11193
Join date : 2013-01-16
Age : 63
Location : Seattle

PostSubject: Re: Wikipedia Woes   Sat Aug 05, 2017 9:33 pm

Reading up on Wikipedia's checkered history has been illuminating.
Quote :

A South American coati.
In July 2008, a 17-year-old student added an invented nickname to the Wikipedia article coati as a private joke, saying coatis were also known as "Brazilian aardvarks". The false information lasted for six years in Wikipedia and came to be propagated by hundreds of websites, several newspapers (one of which was later cited as a source in Wikipedia) and even books published by university presses.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Wikipedia Woes   

Back to top Go down
 
Wikipedia Woes
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» omg i just listerned to the jeremy vines show on mp3
» George Clooney Arrested,
» New Career Opportunities/TEXTUSA
» Von Aesch.
» Is Racial Nationalism Acceptable?

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
 :: Topics :: Science & Tech-
Jump to: