3 ms·

In this case, Wikipedia's editors are the *ssholes. Of course, not every single editor is bad, but a good editor is somebody that: a) accepted the rules of wik

by jorgec 9y ago

In this case, Wikipedia's editors are the *ssholes. Of course, not every single editor is bad, but a good editor is somebody that: a) accepted the rules of wikipedia (that are unfair and prone to abuse). b) have enough spare time. c) don't mind or have troubles working with abusive people. If you are a professional then, it takes a single day to find that Wikipedia is ruled by brats and its not your place.

geezerjay 9y ago
> If you are a professional then, it takes a single day to find that Wikipedia is ruled by brats and its not your place. It sounds like that professional tried to use Wikipedia as his free PR soapbox and found it hard to post propaganda when his submissions are under scrutiny. I've seen that before, with a PR guy trying to create a wikipedia article to sell the event he was organizing and link to it from other sources. Oddly enough, he also criticized wikipedia's editors for being childish and irrational. Meanwhile, he failed to notice the irony or even the fact that he was directly going against wikipedia's spam rules.
- viridian 9y ago
  Did you even look at the WP History? The person who set the DELETE proposal on the page did so because he literally refused to believe that the collaboration existed, and that it looked like some sort of hacker website. I don't know about you, but I don't go on wikipedia to argue with my grandmother about the colloquial phrase hacking, and whether or not hackathons for children are evil or whatever.
  - geezerjay 9y ago
    > The person who set the DELETE proposal on the page did so because he literally refused to believe that the collaboration existed So what? It's your job to present proof that the collaboration existed, and it's your job to convince others that the information you're providing is accurate. And more, submitting a dubious article for deletion is actually just a request for other users to evaluate the merits of the article on their own, and they vote based on the information you provide and the case you make to support your position.

by jorgec 9y ago

geezerjay 9y ago

> If you are a professional then, it takes a single day to find that Wikipedia is ruled by brats and its not your place. It sounds like that professional tried to use Wikipedia as his free PR soapbox and found it hard to post propaganda when his submissions are under scrutiny. I've seen that before, with a PR guy trying to create a wikipedia article to sell the event he was organizing and link to it from other sources. Oddly enough, he also criticized wikipedia's editors for being childish and irrational. Meanwhile, he failed to notice the irony or even the fact that he was directly going against wikipedia's spam rules.

viridian 9y ago
Did you even look at the WP History? The person who set the DELETE proposal on the page did so because he literally refused to believe that the collaboration existed, and that it looked like some sort of hacker website. I don't know about you, but I don't go on wikipedia to argue with my grandmother about the colloquial phrase hacking, and whether or not hackathons for children are evil or whatever.
- geezerjay 9y ago
  > The person who set the DELETE proposal on the page did so because he literally refused to believe that the collaboration existed So what? It's your job to present proof that the collaboration existed, and it's your job to convince others that the information you're providing is accurate. And more, submitting a dubious article for deletion is actually just a request for other users to evaluate the merits of the article on their own, and they vote based on the information you provide and the case you make to support your position.