3 ms·

I doubt someone literally said "you have to ask me first". One thing I've noticed in every thread on Wikipedia on HN is that no one has the faintest clue about

I doubt someone literally said "you have to ask me first". One thing I've noticed in every thread on Wikipedia on HN is that no one has the faintest clue about what admins do [0], and what's going on when they're trying to edit a page. It's more likely that they changed something that was against consensus, and likely had past discussion. They were also probably told something to that effect in the edit summary. And for some reason whenever people share their grievances, they never provide more context like the page it occurred on or their specific edit. Just because it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, doesn't mean it's obligated to take each and every edit regardless of content, quality, or conformance to guidelines and consensus. Wikipedia is also extensively documented, [1] so there's even less reason for a forum that prides itself on being programmer/engineer types to stay so ignorant. [0]: Wikipedia doesn't have "moderators". Anyone can revert edits and just because they opposed your edit, it doesn't automatically mean they're an admin, of which there are only around a thousand. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents

dawnerd 9y ago
Granted it was a while ago and things may have changed, trying to do a simple typo correction lead to what I described. I really don't have time to dig through their documentation just to do something as minor as fixing spelling. It was obvious the editor took offense to it. So thats that from me, sorry for helping I guess. Also run into problems where pages on companies are wrong and edits are prevented even though the information is outright inaccurate. Apparently having the info on the company website isn't cite-able? Seems stupid to me.
- cooper12 9y ago
  The fact that it was a "simple typo" makes me sure there was more to it than that because no one would revert that if it were so. It's likely that it was something you saw as a typo such as the spelling of colour vs color. [0] > Apparently having the info on the company website isn't cite-able? Seems stupid to me. Depends what you're trying to cite. Most small pieces information can be cited just fine to primary sources, though secondary sources are preferred. [1] However, more controversial statements or claims of notability require a reliable independent source, [2] or else any company could claim "we're the best" on their page and include it on Wikipedia. Anyway in both these cases, you fall into the trap I listed before, where you're soooooooo certain that you're in the right and the stupid encyclopedia and its editors are power hungry. Have you ever considered maybe there's more reasoning to it then? Again, I almost guarantee there were reasons given in both cases to which you didn't give the least attention. You wouldn't go making a pull request to an open source project full of code that goes against their style guide, introduces a regression, and is suboptimal and then get righteous that it wasn't accepted without question would you? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Nati... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_independent_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_usin...

dawnerd 9y ago

Granted it was a while ago and things may have changed, trying to do a simple typo correction lead to what I described. I really don't have time to dig through their documentation just to do something as minor as fixing spelling. It was obvious the editor took offense to it. So thats that from me, sorry for helping I guess. Also run into problems where pages on companies are wrong and edits are prevented even though the information is outright inaccurate. Apparently having the info on the company website isn't cite-able? Seems stupid to me.

cooper12 9y ago
The fact that it was a "simple typo" makes me sure there was more to it than that because no one would revert that if it were so. It's likely that it was something you saw as a typo such as the spelling of colour vs color. [0] > Apparently having the info on the company website isn't cite-able? Seems stupid to me. Depends what you're trying to cite. Most small pieces information can be cited just fine to primary sources, though secondary sources are preferred. [1] However, more controversial statements or claims of notability require a reliable independent source, [2] or else any company could claim "we're the best" on their page and include it on Wikipedia. Anyway in both these cases, you fall into the trap I listed before, where you're soooooooo certain that you're in the right and the stupid encyclopedia and its editors are power hungry. Have you ever considered maybe there's more reasoning to it then? Again, I almost guarantee there were reasons given in both cases to which you didn't give the least attention. You wouldn't go making a pull request to an open source project full of code that goes against their style guide, introduces a regression, and is suboptimal and then get righteous that it wasn't accepted without question would you? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Nati... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_independent_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_usin...