6 ms·
Where did you try to contribute? Over the years I've come to see wikipedia as a long term project. It's generally terrible or controversial on current events or
by ErrantX 7y ago
Where did you try to contribute? Over the years I've come to see wikipedia as a long term project. It's generally terrible or controversial on current events or recent history. When people lose general interest and the more academic editors move in it's much better.
- DanBC 7y agoThere's no way of knowing what's going to be a hot-button topic that sucks away your time. There are hundreds of thousands of words of meta discussion about whether to use –,—, or - in titles. This even made its way to Arbcom. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=429209333#Hyphens_and_dashes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitra...
- CharlesColeman 7y ago> It's generally terrible or controversial on current events or recent history. Or any person with any kind of ideological charge, especially a boogeyman to some group or other. The problem with Wikipedia is the fanatics with infinite time, which it accumulates because they're the ones who never give up. The other issue is it's inability to actually deal with problematic users, as the moderation doesn't teach the fanatics to be good, it just teaches them to not be so bad they'll be banned.