4 ms·

This drive-by criticism comes up every time Wikipedia is mentioned on HN. I've written a few articles on computer science topics and haven't been bothered at al

This drive-by criticism comes up every time Wikipedia is mentioned on HN. I've written a few articles on computer science topics and haven't been bothered at all by the roving gangs of bureaucrats. It's always a lovely experience. If you write quality, researched articles on topics beyond those belonging to common knowledge and pop culture, your Wikipedia experience will be very pleasant. Since the HN readership is skews educated and technical, they are very well-equipped to write such articles.

CJefferson 9y ago
You shouldn't generalise from your experience. Im sure you had a good time. I tried improving some highly technical articles, which were significantly wrong, got into an edit war with someone who felt they "owned" the page, and got rules lawyered until I left.
DanBC 9y ago
>If you write quality, researched articles on topics beyond those belonging to common knowledge and pop culture, your Wikipedia experience will be very pleasant this is clearly untrue, and we know it because of all the people who tell us they have a fucking awful experience as soon as they try to edit anything.
bloaf 9y ago
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone* can edit. *People who are not experts in a technical field writing entirely new pages on technical subjects are nobodies, and so do not count as "anyone."
detaro 9y ago
So new contributors shouldn't attempt to fix issues with existing articles, but hope they find something completely uncovered they can invest a lot of effort in making a great article about (without practice with tooling and how to write from smaller contributions), to avoid being stomped on by what a happy contributor calls "the roving gangs of bureaucrats"? Yes, that's how you a) loose a lot of potential contributors and b) make sure existing material stays bad. And I bet there's a gang of bureaucrats specialized on pouncing on articles by newbies as well (which is understandable, if you take a look through newly created articles there is a noticeable amount of spam there. But if they hit the wrong person with the wrong tone, that's another contributor lost) I still contribute to Wikipedia, but seldom more than a spelling/grammar fix or improved links or something like that. These things tend to be left alone, and if they aren't I haven't wasted much effort.
CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
> This drive-by criticism comes up every time Wikipedia is mentioned on HN. I've written a few articles on computer science topics and haven't been bothered at all by the roving gangs of bureaucrats. It's always a lovely experience. That's all fine and well, but I literally only created an account and got attacked. I wasn't even given the opportunity to contribute yet. Unless your intent was to imply that I'm unwilling or incapable of writing quality, researched articles on topics beyond those belonging to knowledge and pop culture, your comment does not logically follow from the stated problem.
- ahelwer 9y ago
  Your stated problem is that caustic behaviour toward new editors drives away potential long-term editors. To support this assertion, you used your own experience. As a counterpoint, I related my own experience, which was different. I'm not sure where it fails to "logically follow" as though this were some mathematical chain of reasoning rather than an informal conversation.
  - CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
    The way your post above was structured served to imply that I'm incapable of writing quality, researched articles on topics beyond those belonging to knowledge and pop culture, which was the component of your post above that I stated did not logically follow. My description of "illogical" was toward your back-handed remark. I'll note that you did not attempt to deny, retract, amend, or correct this interpretation after being presented with it, which leaves me to believe that was your intent all along. In which case: No, that's not acceptable. Personal attacks do not belong on HN, let alone baseless ones.
    - ahelwer 9y ago
      You seem really fixated on the logic here, and I'm feeling bored and unbelievably petty, so let's break it all down. Logical structure of your original post, in your voice: A.P0: If existing editors behave poorly toward new editors, it will drive new editors away. A.P1: Existing editors are behaving poorly toward new editors, based on my anecdotal supporting evidence. A.C: Existing editors are driving away new editors with their poor behaviour. Logical structure of my reply, in my voice: B.P0: Existing editors behave poorly toward newcomers in certain domains such as common knowledge and pop culture. B.P1: Existing editors don't behave poorly toward newcomers in domains such as creation of new technical articles, based on my anecdotal supporting evidence. B.P2: Many HN readers have the capability to write new technical articles. B.C: HN readers will not experience poor behaviour from existing editors if they use their knowledge to write new technical articles. Logical structure of first reply, in your voice: C.P0: It is possible you are implying I am unwilling/incapable of writing quality researched Wikipedia articles. C.P1: If you were not implying C.P0, then your reply does not logically follow (ed. note: probably meant "address" rather than "logically follow") from conclusion A.C. Logical structure of my reply, in my voice: (clarifying restatement of previous) Logical structure of your second reply, in your voice: E.P0: Since you did not explicitly assuage my concerns in C.P0, my concerns are valid. E.P1: If my C.P0 concerns were valid, that constitutes a personal attack. E.P2: Personal attacks are unacceptable on HN. E.C: Your reply to me was unacceptable. Now that we have a nice pseudo-logical representation of our conversation, I hope all ambiguity is cleared up. Anyway, your propositions C.P1 and E.P0 are both incorrect.
emodendroket 9y ago
Any topic of any political import at all tends to get mired in huge back-and-forths, you get editors who insist on editing Japanese translations when they themselves don't speak Japanese, and there are other similar infelicities.

CJefferson 9y ago

You shouldn't generalise from your experience. Im sure you had a good time. I tried improving some highly technical articles, which were significantly wrong, got into an edit war with someone who felt they "owned" the page, and got rules lawyered until I left.

DanBC 9y ago

>If you write quality, researched articles on topics beyond those belonging to common knowledge and pop culture, your Wikipedia experience will be very pleasant this is clearly untrue, and we know it because of all the people who tell us they have a fucking awful experience as soon as they try to edit anything.

bloaf 9y ago

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone* can edit. *People who are not experts in a technical field writing entirely new pages on technical subjects are nobodies, and so do not count as "anyone."

detaro 9y ago

So new contributors shouldn't attempt to fix issues with existing articles, but hope they find something completely uncovered they can invest a lot of effort in making a great article about (without practice with tooling and how to write from smaller contributions), to avoid being stomped on by what a happy contributor calls "the roving gangs of bureaucrats"? Yes, that's how you a) loose a lot of potential contributors and b) make sure existing material stays bad. And I bet there's a gang of bureaucrats specialized on pouncing on articles by newbies as well (which is understandable, if you take a look through newly created articles there is a noticeable amount of spam there. But if they hit the wrong person with the wrong tone, that's another contributor lost) I still contribute to Wikipedia, but seldom more than a spelling/grammar fix or improved links or something like that. These things tend to be left alone, and if they aren't I haven't wasted much effort.

CiPHPerCoder 9y ago

> This drive-by criticism comes up every time Wikipedia is mentioned on HN. I've written a few articles on computer science topics and haven't been bothered at all by the roving gangs of bureaucrats. It's always a lovely experience. That's all fine and well, but I literally only created an account and got attacked. I wasn't even given the opportunity to contribute yet. Unless your intent was to imply that I'm unwilling or incapable of writing quality, researched articles on topics beyond those belonging to knowledge and pop culture, your comment does not logically follow from the stated problem.

ahelwer 9y ago
Your stated problem is that caustic behaviour toward new editors drives away potential long-term editors. To support this assertion, you used your own experience. As a counterpoint, I related my own experience, which was different. I'm not sure where it fails to "logically follow" as though this were some mathematical chain of reasoning rather than an informal conversation.
- CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
  The way your post above was structured served to imply that I'm incapable of writing quality, researched articles on topics beyond those belonging to knowledge and pop culture, which was the component of your post above that I stated did not logically follow. My description of "illogical" was toward your back-handed remark. I'll note that you did not attempt to deny, retract, amend, or correct this interpretation after being presented with it, which leaves me to believe that was your intent all along. In which case: No, that's not acceptable. Personal attacks do not belong on HN, let alone baseless ones.
  - ahelwer 9y ago
    You seem really fixated on the logic here, and I'm feeling bored and unbelievably petty, so let's break it all down. Logical structure of your original post, in your voice: A.P0: If existing editors behave poorly toward new editors, it will drive new editors away. A.P1: Existing editors are behaving poorly toward new editors, based on my anecdotal supporting evidence. A.C: Existing editors are driving away new editors with their poor behaviour. Logical structure of my reply, in my voice: B.P0: Existing editors behave poorly toward newcomers in certain domains such as common knowledge and pop culture. B.P1: Existing editors don't behave poorly toward newcomers in domains such as creation of new technical articles, based on my anecdotal supporting evidence. B.P2: Many HN readers have the capability to write new technical articles. B.C: HN readers will not experience poor behaviour from existing editors if they use their knowledge to write new technical articles. Logical structure of first reply, in your voice: C.P0: It is possible you are implying I am unwilling/incapable of writing quality researched Wikipedia articles. C.P1: If you were not implying C.P0, then your reply does not logically follow (ed. note: probably meant "address" rather than "logically follow") from conclusion A.C. Logical structure of my reply, in my voice: (clarifying restatement of previous) Logical structure of your second reply, in your voice: E.P0: Since you did not explicitly assuage my concerns in C.P0, my concerns are valid. E.P1: If my C.P0 concerns were valid, that constitutes a personal attack. E.P2: Personal attacks are unacceptable on HN. E.C: Your reply to me was unacceptable. Now that we have a nice pseudo-logical representation of our conversation, I hope all ambiguity is cleared up. Anyway, your propositions C.P1 and E.P0 are both incorrect.

emodendroket 9y ago

Any topic of any political import at all tends to get mired in huge back-and-forths, you get editors who insist on editing Japanese translations when they themselves don't speak Japanese, and there are other similar infelicities.