3 ms·

I have learned that in order to actually contribute to Wikipedia, you have to treat it less like a collaboration and more like a battle. You can't just contrib

by runn1ng 11y ago

I have learned that in order to actually contribute to Wikipedia, you have to treat it less like a collaboration and more like a battle. You can't just contribute and consider it done. You have to be prepare to fight your way through, engage in edit wars, learn about the battlefield (the bureaucracy, the article sourcing) and in the end, if you fight long enough, you usually win. You have to repeatedly, over and over, show that the other person (who 'owns' the article) is wrong, he will revert it, so you do a little dance of reverting and back, then you have to try to dig up some rule from the ruleset, and as I said, you will usually win because the other person gives up. Or he doesn't, but then some higher editor stumps him.

ars 11y ago
You are correct, and you know what happens? The people LEAST qualified to contribute contribute the most. Why? Because they have too much time on their hands, and can battle endlessly. People with real knowledge usually have better things to do.
- Zitrax 11y ago
  It is indeed a problem to not have enough time. Just throwing in some facts in an article is often not good enough, it must fit with the flow of the article and not repeat things that has already been said and be in order, and with references etc etc. Some people might not have the time for that additional work to make the contribution "good enough". I haven't followed Wikipedia for a while but I assume that some rejected changes are due to that people throw in some changes that might be correct but are not worked on enough to fit in with the rest of the article. And one can't in general assume that someone else will do that work for you. Than the easy way out is often a revert instead of leaving a more unfinished article live. I did most of my contributions to Wikipedia when I had that extra time.
  - flomo 11y ago
    I see the exactly opposite. There's so many poorly written wikipedia entries which read as "Fact. Other Disconnected Fact. Another Random Fact (except for fact, fact and fact)." I've made attempts at smoothing out the language in various articles, and it often gets reverted because someone's precious trivia was removed. If anything, it seems that wikipedians are loath to have anything "edited down".
elsewhen 11y ago
right, and the problem is the people who are willing to engage in such a battle are a self-selecting group of people. the final product we see on the site, ends up being largely contributed by that group of willing fighters, and less those that have the most domain expertise.
rloc 11y ago
Yes that's exactly what I experienced. A knowledge repository built upon who fights harder and who gives up first (in most cases due to lack of time arguing for every sentence) is kind of broken.
Balgair 11y ago
I do not think you are at all lying. However, why in the name of all that is holy would I ever do that? Literally, cleaning my toenails is a better use of my time than that. Doing my neighbor's taxes is a better use of my time. Getting high and watching the news is better use of time. It just seems so utterly hopeless and pointless to even try from what you say. Why do you do this?!
- runn1ng 11y ago
  Because you want the truth on Wikipedia, basically. When I want something to be written there, I am willing to push it through, dig up all the necessary references on Google Scholar (ultimately, references to papers are the best munition you can have) and argue about it. But it isn't for someone who just wants to write a bit of his knowledge and let it go.
Shivetya 11y ago
trouble is on some articles where the science is still up fo debate or sensitive you run up against the older editors whose word is law. Got to love a source being rejected as not credible when the same reference existed elsewhere. It is a great site for facts or information where there is no ability to debate or need too, like top 40 songs, videos, and anime.
return0 11y ago
It would be premature to get to that stage, given the vast gap in quality (even in the english wikipedia, articles in many domains have glaring errors / omissions and nonsense in them). First you build the world, and only when it's become a zero sum game you fight over it.
cooper12 11y ago
Umm you're right that whoever cares more will usually win, but edit warring is a quick way to get yourself banned. There's a talk page right next to the "Read" tab. Use it and come to a consensus like a reasonable person. If you treat Wikipedia like a battleground, of course people are going to assume you aren't there to build an encyclopedia.
- runn1ng 11y ago
  Nobody reads the talk pages. Also I don't really want to do that. It's just a necessity, otherwise your text gets immediately reverted. While when you stick with it and revert it back, you actually have a chance
bjourne 11y ago
> You can't just contribute and consider it done. You have to be prepare to fight your way through, engage in edit wars, learn about the battlefield (the bureaucracy, the article sourcing) and in the end, if you fight long enough, you usually win. And this is why only fundamentalists and paid editors edit Wikipedia. I spent days with such battles on a certain Wikipedia page only to have one "senior" editor come around and essentially say that I was wrong (no explanation given) and revert the changes. It's a completely useless waste of time. :)

by runn1ng 11y ago

ars 11y ago

You are correct, and you know what happens? The people LEAST qualified to contribute contribute the most. Why? Because they have too much time on their hands, and can battle endlessly. People with real knowledge usually have better things to do.

Zitrax 11y ago
It is indeed a problem to not have enough time. Just throwing in some facts in an article is often not good enough, it must fit with the flow of the article and not repeat things that has already been said and be in order, and with references etc etc. Some people might not have the time for that additional work to make the contribution "good enough". I haven't followed Wikipedia for a while but I assume that some rejected changes are due to that people throw in some changes that might be correct but are not worked on enough to fit in with the rest of the article. And one can't in general assume that someone else will do that work for you. Than the easy way out is often a revert instead of leaving a more unfinished article live. I did most of my contributions to Wikipedia when I had that extra time.
- flomo 11y ago
  I see the exactly opposite. There's so many poorly written wikipedia entries which read as "Fact. Other Disconnected Fact. Another Random Fact (except for fact, fact and fact)." I've made attempts at smoothing out the language in various articles, and it often gets reverted because someone's precious trivia was removed. If anything, it seems that wikipedians are loath to have anything "edited down".

elsewhen 11y ago

right, and the problem is the people who are willing to engage in such a battle are a self-selecting group of people. the final product we see on the site, ends up being largely contributed by that group of willing fighters, and less those that have the most domain expertise.

rloc 11y ago

Yes that's exactly what I experienced. A knowledge repository built upon who fights harder and who gives up first (in most cases due to lack of time arguing for every sentence) is kind of broken.

Balgair 11y ago

I do not think you are at all lying. However, why in the name of all that is holy would I ever do that? Literally, cleaning my toenails is a better use of my time than that. Doing my neighbor's taxes is a better use of my time. Getting high and watching the news is better use of time. It just seems so utterly hopeless and pointless to even try from what you say. Why do you do this?!

runn1ng 11y ago
Because you want the truth on Wikipedia, basically. When I want something to be written there, I am willing to push it through, dig up all the necessary references on Google Scholar (ultimately, references to papers are the best munition you can have) and argue about it. But it isn't for someone who just wants to write a bit of his knowledge and let it go.

Shivetya 11y ago

trouble is on some articles where the science is still up fo debate or sensitive you run up against the older editors whose word is law. Got to love a source being rejected as not credible when the same reference existed elsewhere. It is a great site for facts or information where there is no ability to debate or need too, like top 40 songs, videos, and anime.

return0 11y ago

It would be premature to get to that stage, given the vast gap in quality (even in the english wikipedia, articles in many domains have glaring errors / omissions and nonsense in them). First you build the world, and only when it's become a zero sum game you fight over it.

cooper12 11y ago

Umm you're right that whoever cares more will usually win, but edit warring is a quick way to get yourself banned. There's a talk page right next to the "Read" tab. Use it and come to a consensus like a reasonable person. If you treat Wikipedia like a battleground, of course people are going to assume you aren't there to build an encyclopedia.

runn1ng 11y ago
Nobody reads the talk pages. Also I don't really want to do that. It's just a necessity, otherwise your text gets immediately reverted. While when you stick with it and revert it back, you actually have a chance

bjourne 11y ago

> You can't just contribute and consider it done. You have to be prepare to fight your way through, engage in edit wars, learn about the battlefield (the bureaucracy, the article sourcing) and in the end, if you fight long enough, you usually win. And this is why only fundamentalists and paid editors edit Wikipedia. I spent days with such battles on a certain Wikipedia page only to have one "senior" editor come around and essentially say that I was wrong (no explanation given) and revert the changes. It's a completely useless waste of time. :)