3 ms·
That broad brush of a judgment doesn't work. Wikipedia is so massive, no human will ever have even a tiny clue what's all there. Go look at articles on botany o
by quadrangle 8y ago
That broad brush of a judgment doesn't work. Wikipedia is so massive, no human will ever have even a tiny clue what's all there. Go look at articles on botany or something and you'll see basically all facts and no opinions. Look at articles on people and politics… well, what would you expect?
I'm sure there's some way to create an evaluation of of the network of editors. We'd see that there are sections of Wikipedia where the editors all overlap and sections with near-zero connections, and those different sections are almost different worlds.
- mirimir 8y agoI suspect that there are pitched battles in botany too. And about areas with sane editors, it's arguable that the rot runs all the way to the top.
- quadrangle 8y agoI'm totally doubtful that it's anything comparable to cases of people and politics.
- spiralx 8y agoYou'd be surprised at some of the things that generate massive edit wars on Wikipedia though: https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/wikipedia-lamest-edit-wars/ https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/wikipedia-...
- quadrangle 8y agoYour hypothesis is wrong. I find none of those surprising. And they are mostly single pointed facts that are disputed, not complex patterns of edits that involve opinion.