4 ms·

> 80% of the effort of creating new content is following byzantine processes and procedures You literally just press edit, make your changes, and then press sa

by c3534l 11y ago

> 80% of the effort of creating new content is following byzantine processes and procedures You literally just press edit, make your changes, and then press save. There is zero bureaucracy in adding content. The bureaucracy comes into play with there is unresolved conflict and disagreement, when there is a controversy over how an article is written. In that case, there are definite, objective(ish) standards and rules by which those arguments can come to a resolution of some kind. I suppose in a more hierarchical structure there would be less bureaucracy when there are disagreements and the next person in charge would simply decide which view he thought was more correct. But the traditional structure of writing an encyclopedia is filled with gatekeepers who have the final, single decision without much of a need to reach consensus. Depending on your view this could be good or it could be bad.

mortenjorck 11y ago
You literally just press edit, make your changes, and then press save. You literally just press edit, make your changes, press save, and then wait a few minutes to an hour for your edit to be reverted. Seriously, though, it's disingenuous to suggest that editing is so simple - to be pedantic, yes, the edit itself is free of bureaucracy, but in the majority of cases I've observed, the real effort is in making an edit (not even a controversial one) stick.
- x1798DE 11y ago
  Almost none of my edits ever get reverted, including even fairly major changes, other than in contentious articles or when it comes down to an editorial decision. Generally I'm either making minor fixes (basically nothing you would dispute), or when I add something, it's cited. When there is a conflict, it's probably beyond most people to figure out how to handle the conflict resolution process (which generally, in my experience, is fruitful), but if you're adding high quality content, that rarely comes up - it's just that when it does it takes up a disproportionate amount of your time.
ddingus 11y ago
Yes, an add is easy as you say. However, it will be reverted nearly all of the time, and that is where the trouble is. Why contribute when the idea of others actually seeing the benefit of doing it is so painful?

by c3534l 11y ago

mortenjorck 11y ago

You literally just press edit, make your changes, and then press save. You literally just press edit, make your changes, press save, and then wait a few minutes to an hour for your edit to be reverted. Seriously, though, it's disingenuous to suggest that editing is so simple - to be pedantic, yes, the edit itself is free of bureaucracy, but in the majority of cases I've observed, the real effort is in making an edit (not even a controversial one) stick.

x1798DE 11y ago
Almost none of my edits ever get reverted, including even fairly major changes, other than in contentious articles or when it comes down to an editorial decision. Generally I'm either making minor fixes (basically nothing you would dispute), or when I add something, it's cited. When there is a conflict, it's probably beyond most people to figure out how to handle the conflict resolution process (which generally, in my experience, is fruitful), but if you're adding high quality content, that rarely comes up - it's just that when it does it takes up a disproportionate amount of your time.

ddingus 11y ago

Yes, an add is easy as you say. However, it will be reverted nearly all of the time, and that is where the trouble is. Why contribute when the idea of others actually seeing the benefit of doing it is so painful?