If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Wikipedia running out of nerds living in their parents' basement. Fark still going strong   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 55
    More: Interesting, Wikipedians, Wikimania, Commonly Misspelled Words, Jimmy Wales, WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, basements, SOPA, internet freedom  
•       •       •

4552 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Jul 2012 at 8:28 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-15 08:40:13 AM
OT, but what's with the one-paragraph pages? Washington Post Toasties that desperate to increase their apparent total page hits?
 
2012-07-15 08:46:52 AM
Wikipedia is about as welcoming to new editors as a clan of Alabama hillbillies are to a black New York banker.
 
2012-07-15 09:01:58 AM
A few years back, I read a Wikipedia article with a number of spelling and grammatical errors that would be easily cleaned up. I carefully did so, and was promptly smacked down and my edits were pulled. I'm still not totally certain why, but I don't attempt to make any edits to Wikipedia anymore.
 
2012-07-15 09:04:46 AM

i_got_no_strings: A few years back, I read a Wikipedia article with a number of spelling and grammatical errors that would be easily cleaned up. I carefully did so, and was promptly smacked down and my edits were pulled. I'm still not totally certain why, but I don't attempt to make any edits to Wikipedia anymore.


Yeah, I've tried to add content and clarity on a couple of occasions and was promptly told to fark off.

So I did.
 
2012-07-15 09:09:25 AM
Fark still going strong

No it's not.

/forever alone
//even on fark
 
2012-07-15 09:12:06 AM
Has anyone mentioned that attempting to edit Wikipedia is a nightmare?
 
2012-07-15 09:32:36 AM
Hey, that's not fair, I don't live in a basement.
 
2012-07-15 09:40:25 AM
With all the comments about how difficult it is to update/fix entries on Wikipedia, I recall how years ago I was reading an excellent article on the Norman Conquest of England when right in the middle there was the proclamation "(some guys name) sucks dick".

It remained there for weeks.
 
2012-07-15 09:40:26 AM
I used to be active on Wikipedia, but the deletionists are real drips.
 
2012-07-15 09:50:55 AM

LeroyB: With all the comments about how difficult it is to update/fix entries on Wikipedia, I recall how years ago I was reading an excellent article on the Norman Conquest of England when right in the middle there was the proclamation "(some guys name) sucks dick".

It remained there for weeks.


Yes, our apologies-- this was an editorial oversight. We've since moved this to the page on "Norman's Conquests."
 
2012-07-15 09:55:00 AM

LeroyB: With all the comments about how difficult it is to update/fix entries on Wikipedia, I recall how years ago I was reading an excellent article on the Norman Conquest of England when right in the middle there was the proclamation "(some guys name) sucks dick".

It remained there for weeks.


Well, if it's on Wikipedia.org, you KNOW it's true.
 
2012-07-15 10:02:12 AM
Well maybe it's because of dickhead edit wars where you have to beg...oh, see it's covered here. Everyone knows it, so fix it and you'll have contributors back.
 
2012-07-15 10:11:02 AM

dervish16108: I used to be active on Wikipedia, but the deletionists are real drips.


Pretty much this. I used to maintain pages about commercial but not-often publicized MUD's from the 80's. I wanted to see that the knowledge would not be lost over time after the companies had folded. All of my pages were deleted because my sources didn't include any print magazines. I mean really?

Fark wikipedia. It could have been something great, but they decided to ruin it by destroying hundreds of thousands of hours of people's work over stupid rules. Do they honestly think that if someone puts tons of effort into an article and then has it deleted, that they are going to want to waste any more of their time adding anything to wikipedia ever again? Because that's how I felt. I spent hours researching these old muds, sourced everything properly, then all my work was deleted one day. Life is short, why would I ever contribute to wikipedia if everything can just be deleted by some power tripper?
 
2012-07-15 10:18:16 AM
Wikipedia is going to have trouble finding editors when their editors are already all up in ivory towers dumping molten metal onto anyone trying to become an editor on their own.
 
2012-07-15 10:18:44 AM

Marcus Aurelius: i_got_no_strings: A few years back, I read a Wikipedia article with a number of spelling and grammatical errors that would be easily cleaned up. I carefully did so, and was promptly smacked down and my edits were pulled. I'm still not totally certain why, but I don't attempt to make any edits to Wikipedia anymore.

Yeah, I've tried to add content and clarity on a couple of occasions and was promptly told to fark off.

So I did.


Exactly. I've made multiple edits--and I don't believe any of them are still there other than on talk pages.
 
2012-07-15 10:22:10 AM

untaken_name: LeroyB: With all the comments about how difficult it is to update/fix entries on Wikipedia, I recall how years ago I was reading an excellent article on the Norman Conquest of England when right in the middle there was the proclamation "(some guys name) sucks dick".

It remained there for weeks.

Well, if it's on Wikipedia.org, you KNOW it's true.



I just think about all the kids who did a copy/paste on the article as it was then and handed it in to their teachers as-is.

When I was a kid we had to write the stuff down onto paper from a physical encyclopedia before we would write up a report and hand it in. Kids these days.
 
2012-07-15 10:45:02 AM
Simple solution. Have term limits for those self appointed experts who control a particular subject, may one year on important subjects two or so on less importants ones and so on. Also have an "up kicker" (hmm I just made that up, I think I'll patent the forthcoming idea) in which if you change an article and it's rejected by the moderators that you can "kick it up" so someone higher then them as a sort of appeal that the moderator (deletionists) can't stop.
 
2012-07-15 10:47:19 AM
I remember a page that had "I herd you liek mudkipz lol" in the middle of hardware specs.
 
2012-07-15 10:50:10 AM

mrlewish: Have term limits for those self appointed experts who control a particular subject, may one year on important subjects two or so on less importants ones and so on.


That's a great idea! Then we can make sure that good editors HAVE to be forced out to be replaced by petty tyrants because only petty tyrants are going to campaign to be an editor.
 
2012-07-15 10:54:11 AM
If you don't like Wikipedia, there's Citizendium, a better academically-oriented version of Wikipedia.

But anyways. Every person who use Wikipedia has unique stories to tell to the world. I once had a handful of fights with Korean and Korean-American editors in Wikipedia long time ago because I edited minor things on several articles pertaining to Korea. Then I finally knew that those Korean and Korean-American editors mostly have some kind of ultra-nationalist and ultra-conservative beliefs. I know; it's the Korean cultural influence that shows strong in their ideas. I thought they were Stromfront members to begin with. There's another story that I and other editors were involved in a huge edit war with a rude British administrator.

Wikipedia attracts the weirdest people all over the world with a seniority-based elitism.

dervish16108: I used to be active on Wikipedia, but the deletionists are real drips.


Deletionists are what killed Wikipedia in the first place.
 
2012-07-15 11:12:18 AM

mrlewish: Simple solution. Have term limits for those self appointed experts who control a particular subject,


That's the part that always killed me about Wiki. Some double PhD from MIT and Harvard could submit an article about neutrino movement citing thirty years of work s/he has done personally and with others and have it clipped by a 22 year old engineering student in Podunk Nebraska who miraculously has hours and hours of free time on his hands despite working on his Masters.
 
2012-07-15 11:23:48 AM

i_got_no_strings: A few years back, I read a Wikipedia article with a number of spelling and grammatical errors that would be easily cleaned up. I carefully did so, and was promptly smacked down and my edits were pulled. I'm still not totally certain why, but I don't attempt to make any edits to Wikipedia anymore.


Several years ago I found more than a couple Transformer articles with Character Histories that were just directly copied from an old Marvel "Know Your Transformers" comic I had when I was a kid. I made mention of this in the TalkBack page, but it was pretty much ignored. I'm not sure if it was ever changed or not.
 
2012-07-15 11:27:44 AM

dervish16108: I used to be active on Wikipedia, but the deletionists are real drips.


They're squares, man! They don't make the scene, knowwhatImean? Real bird-brains who couldn't paint the town with a hot plate!
 
2012-07-15 11:45:59 AM

dervish16108: I used to be active on Wikipedia, but the deletionists are real drips.


This. I've had about a dozen very old (i.e., uploaded several years ago) photos deleted from Wikipedia recently because of their switch in photo uploading procedure. Because of it, photos I took myself were deleted because they weren't uploaded the *new* way, and no one who deleted any of them wanted to explain why or how they weren't "free" in their minds.

And yet, as pointed out above, high school sophomores can put in that they are the awesomest thing every or tell everyone some bully sucks cock, and nothing will happen to it unless someone bothers to fix it.
 
2012-07-15 11:46:22 AM

LeroyB: With all the comments about how difficult it is to update/fix entries on Wikipedia, I recall how years ago I was reading an excellent article on the Norman Conquest of England when right in the middle there was the proclamation "(some guys name) sucks dick".

It remained there for weeks.


The entry on Mormonism is often quite humorous like that.
 
2012-07-15 12:15:08 PM
Deleting information is anathema to the goal of being a knowledge repository.

Editor, you think some fact doesn't have a good citation? Flag it, but leave it.

You want to delete an entire article because you don't think the subject is notable? Fark you, leave your subjectivity out of it. Flag it but leave it.
 
2012-07-15 12:31:36 PM

MithrandirBooga: dervish16108: I used to be active on Wikipedia, but the deletionists are real drips.

Pretty much this. I used to maintain pages about commercial but not-often publicized MUD's from the 80's. I wanted to see that the knowledge would not be lost over time after the companies had folded. All of my pages were deleted because my sources didn't include any print magazines. I mean really?

Fark wikipedia. It could have been something great, but they decided to ruin it by destroying hundreds of thousands of hours of people's work over stupid rules. Do they honestly think that if someone puts tons of effort into an article and then has it deleted, that they are going to want to waste any more of their time adding anything to wikipedia ever again? Because that's how I felt. I spent hours researching these old muds, sourced everything properly, then all my work was deleted one day. Life is short, why would I ever contribute to wikipedia if everything can just be deleted by some power tripper?



Yup, wikipedia's sudden war on topics arbitrarily judges "obscure" annoyed me as well, but what really turned me off the site was how this was used by certain editors to promote biases they approved of in an indirect way, particularly nationalism.

The Israel-Palestine edit wars are pretty well known, but a lesser known edit war that broke out around 2004-5 when some English nationalists decided wikipedia was allowing far too much discussion of Celtic Britain (the pre-English and pre-Roman history of Britain as well as the histories of Cornwall, Scotland and Wales) and any fiction dealing with. As an example, the Macbeth and Mac Bethad used to be both really excellent sources for their subject matter(the play and the man) and expansive portals to all sorts of obscure literature and scholarship dealing with the play, the real people that inspired it, and Scotland during the medieval period. It was even a featured page; an example of what the head honchos over there were looking for in their entries. Then the English nationalists showed up yelling about how there's no such think as non-English British history and trashing any page that said otherwise. While they didn't manage to wipe out pages dealing with the non-Roman and non-English history of Britain entirely, they did manage to get the content pruned down significantly and most of the links to ancillary material removed. The message was pretty clear; there'd be little tolerance for Brits interested in their non-English heritage, but unruly English nationalists committing actual entry vandalism get their "concerns" catered to.
 
2012-07-15 12:42:10 PM

dervish16108: I used to be active on Wikipedia, but the deletionists are real drips.


Yep.
spacebison.com
 
2012-07-15 01:03:00 PM
Editing Wikipedia is a waste of time because your edits are axed by Wiki editors with different opinions. You can't even use a good sockpuppet in there anymore. ;)
 
2012-07-15 01:18:14 PM
Wikipedia is an RPG..
 
2012-07-15 01:18:53 PM

Europos: Fark still going strong

No it's not.

/forever alone
//even on fark


There's room over at the place that killed Digg.
 
2012-07-15 01:24:40 PM
Jimmy Wales: "One thing we always want to look at carefully is the tone and the health of the community to make sure we continue to be welcoming and that people aren't put off when they make their first edit."

As another who's had numerous valid entries quashed for no apparent reasons, Wikipedia editors themselves are to blame for this massive FAIL.

And yet they'll let the most outrageous statements stand. For years they had a statement that our local high school in a Seattle suburb was "the most-expensive high school built in the U.S." Sorry: not even close to urban magnet schools.

And, now on a lot of community pages we're getting vanity entries by every homecoming queen and city council member in history.

/citation needed
 
2012-07-15 01:41:19 PM
You cannot make any serious improvements to an article without getting in an edit war that can drag for weeks. I've won most of these wars by dragging them so long my opponent felt embarrassed and ashamed and quit.
 
2012-07-15 01:49:57 PM
From the Article -- Jimmy Wales----- "...to make sure we continue to be welcoming and that people aren't put off when they make their first edit."

Bahha hahhahha --- Oh boy little too late for that Jimbo .

" Put off " as in being banned because the changes do not coincide with the editor's political bent or basement dwelling version of reality even though you are citing government documents and archives for the changes ?

Go suck a bag of dicks Jimbo
 
2012-07-15 01:52:39 PM

styckx: Wikipedia is an RPG..


It sure look like it. I think it started as an online encyclopedia but it's turned into a game.
 
2012-07-15 01:52:46 PM

bifford: You cannot make any serious improvements to an article without getting in an edit war that can drag for weeks. I've won most of these wars by dragging them so long my opponent felt embarrassed and ashamed and quit.


You are awesome.
 
2012-07-15 01:56:46 PM
And nothing of value is lost.
 
2012-07-15 02:15:46 PM
Just a few comments from a combo Farker/Wikipedian (who was at the conference actually).

For those sharing stories about being "bitten" after making edits, the community is actively working on ways to help prevent that kind of thing. Typically the problem lies in the fact that Wikipedia has a million and one policies and guidelines that noobs can easily run afoul of and some long-time editors are not forgiving enough, or fail to assume good faith (a Wikipedia guideline of its own).

Also, on the topic of the difficulty of editing: in the final quarter of 2012 Wikipedia will be rolling out both a visual editor and a substantially improved mobile interface (and apps).

My favorite quote from the weekend: "Tell them if its good enough for the National Archivist, it should be good enough for them." -David Ferriero, National Archivist
 
2012-07-15 02:25:59 PM
I actually predicted this when it first came out. I surmised that any system open to participation from anyone will inevitably develop and cultivate a culture of complete control freaks who will babysit/marry their pet topics and fiercely guard it against any dissension. This isn't inherently a bad thing -- after all, you need a dedicated arm of "security guards" to protect the system's integrity against saboteurs, vandals, and total shiatbags. As the system ages, however, this old guard becomes a conservative bureaucracy, fiercely resistant to change and overly-protective of its self-appointed status.

Among web forums, this actually happens much faster than what's happened with Wilipedia.
 
2012-07-15 02:28:22 PM

HotSprite: the community is actively working on ways to help prevent that kind of thing.


Wikipedia has started a pre-edit division of their mod squad. They seek out new accounts and ban them before you can even make an edit. Awesome technology. Runs off the brains of irradiated mutant orphan souls.
 
2012-07-15 03:09:57 PM
fluffy2097:

Wikipedia has started a pre-edit division of their mod squad. They seek out new accounts and ban them before you can even make an edit. Awesome technology. Runs off the brains of irradiated mutant orphan souls.

This is patently untrue. Anyways, you don't even need an account to edit.
 
2012-07-15 03:25:56 PM
Wikipedia editor logic: If a primary source is contradicted by a plurality of secondary sources, the primary source is wrong.

This fact alone is why the only reason I use the site is for booking up on Neon Genesis Evangelion lore.
 
2012-07-15 03:29:48 PM
But I thought Wikipedia was open source...unpossible..you lie.
 
2012-07-15 04:08:55 PM
Jimbo understands that the natural tendency of communities like this is for a sort of nobility to form among the most prolific users, and that an encyclopedia in the traditional sense wasn't the most ethical medium for such egotism. I mean, he'd have to be pretty farking thick-headed to not see what the problem is with his website...

It took me a little while to realize it, but I'm pretty sure Jimbo's just a massive dick who doesn't want to change anything about the community structure.

I'm pretty sure he fancies himself King of the Douches and that he purposefully designed the moderator/editor structure to achieve such ends... like he wanted to build a sort of "knowledge mafia".
 
2012-07-15 06:02:42 PM

HotSprite: This is patently untrue. Anyways, you don't even need an account to edit.


Gee, I thought being powered by the brains of mutant orphan souls was clue enough of that...

/souls don't have brains dumbass.
 
2012-07-15 08:09:10 PM

HotSprite: fluffy2097:

Wikipedia has started a pre-edit division of their mod squad. They seek out new accounts and ban them before you can even make an edit. Awesome technology. Runs off the brains of irradiated mutant orphan souls.

This is patently untrue. Anyways, you don't even need an account to edit.


19 y/o Psychology student at UMiami.
19 y/o

19 y/o

Everything anyone needs to know about Wikipedia is summed up in the majority of the comments in this thread, and your profile details. Here's hoping for the rapid demise of Wikipedia.
 
2012-07-15 08:57:15 PM
I propose a mass-edit of Wikipedia articles wherein people add remarks about the personalities and worth of the tantrum-throwing editors. Perhaps if enough people do so, it will accomplish som.... nah, probably won't.
 
2012-07-15 09:08:46 PM

1derful: Wikipedia editor logic: If a primary source is contradicted by a plurality of secondary sources, the primary source is wrong.

This fact alone is why the only reason I use the site is for booking up on Neon Genesis Evangelion lore.


Yup, Wikipedia is about consensus far more than it is about right.
 
2012-07-15 09:18:07 PM
oi48.tinypic.com

/have nothing else to contribute, although I find the power struggles, egotism, and edit wars to be funny reads
 
2012-07-15 09:20:06 PM
i306.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report