3 ms·

Let's stop pretending any of these rules are "arcane". Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. Right there in the

Let's stop pretending any of these rules are "arcane". Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. Right there in the sidebar in plain view, the first option is "Help": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents. Everything you need to know to edit is there. You can also just Google "Wikipedia how to edit" and plenty of hits will come up. It's not hard at all. You sound no better than someone who bitches about some open source project when they didn't even do basic due diligence and RTFM.

yongjik 8y ago
How can it be considered not arcane when it contains gems like "Wikipedia:Be bold" and "Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point". In other words, when I'm skirting a rule, I'm "being bold". When you claim your edit did not violate some rule any more than my edit did, you're "disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point". If these issues are resolved by reasonable folks, it may still work, but Wikipedia is not a democracy and issues are frequently not resolved by reasonable folks.
- cooper12 8y ago
  What is nuance and actually reading what these titles say? It's all written out for you and there's no contradiction. Also, no one actually uses the disrupt point like that.
  - hexane360 8y ago
    >It's all written out for you >no one actually uses the disrupt point like that. You're using institutional knowledge here, not something that's obvious straight from the text. This is exactly the point GP is making.
    - cooper12 8y ago
      Nope, I'm saying they fabricated their own scenario that none of the documentation actually backs up. Maybe you should read it too.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]