3 ms·

Tbh that just sounds like the regular Wikipedia editing drama. "Everyone can edit Wikipedia!" except almost every page has an editor or group of editors who fe

Tbh that just sounds like the regular Wikipedia editing drama. "Everyone can edit Wikipedia!" except almost every page has an editor or group of editors who feels it belongs to them and they will push their own agenda. This is not a unique situation at all. It's a deep rooted problem with Wikipedia almost from the very beginning.

duelingjello 7y ago
Yes. So much narcissism, Dunning-Kruger and so little authoritative expertise/oral history. I had a guitarist Wikipedia editor tell me that a niche science industry page update adding historical details of people and places "wasn't relevant" when it was an account of an important era for that industry. Smh. History lost forever.
- FillardMillmore 7y ago
  I sympathize with your situation. People are fallible arbiters of truth and relevancy. But why was the fact that this editor was a guitarist have relevance? Was that his/her stated profession (and so by implication you're saying they overestimate their ability as an editor in this particular field of science industry ala Dunning-Kruger effect)?
  - ssss11 7y ago
    I think they’re saying the editor had expertise in, and had only edited, guitar related Wikipedia pages previously.
- thwarted 7y ago
  > History lost forever. This is putting too much weight and responsibility on Wikipedia and this kind of thought only serves to build up the narcissistic Dunning-Kruger editors/contributors rather than label Wikipedia for what it is: crowd-sourced, with all the drawbacks and caveats thereof. If there is a piece of history you think is important, capture it someplace else so that it isn't lost forever.
- jhanschoo 7y ago
  There is a perpetual tension in Wikipedia between being a good, succinct overview to X subject matter versus being a repository for information that X subject matter experts would like to see. Editorial policy on WP errs toward the former, and is quite hostile to the latter, preferring that information especially useful primarily to subject-matter experts be located on dedicated subject-matter wikis hosted by other orgs. Perhaps there is a need for a wiki-based encyclopedia that allows in-depth articles and information by experts, but WP has decided that it is not it.

duelingjello 7y ago

Yes. So much narcissism, Dunning-Kruger and so little authoritative expertise/oral history. I had a guitarist Wikipedia editor tell me that a niche science industry page update adding historical details of people and places "wasn't relevant" when it was an account of an important era for that industry. Smh. History lost forever.

FillardMillmore 7y ago
I sympathize with your situation. People are fallible arbiters of truth and relevancy. But why was the fact that this editor was a guitarist have relevance? Was that his/her stated profession (and so by implication you're saying they overestimate their ability as an editor in this particular field of science industry ala Dunning-Kruger effect)?
- ssss11 7y ago
  I think they’re saying the editor had expertise in, and had only edited, guitar related Wikipedia pages previously.
thwarted 7y ago
> History lost forever. This is putting too much weight and responsibility on Wikipedia and this kind of thought only serves to build up the narcissistic Dunning-Kruger editors/contributors rather than label Wikipedia for what it is: crowd-sourced, with all the drawbacks and caveats thereof. If there is a piece of history you think is important, capture it someplace else so that it isn't lost forever.
jhanschoo 7y ago
There is a perpetual tension in Wikipedia between being a good, succinct overview to X subject matter versus being a repository for information that X subject matter experts would like to see. Editorial policy on WP errs toward the former, and is quite hostile to the latter, preferring that information especially useful primarily to subject-matter experts be located on dedicated subject-matter wikis hosted by other orgs. Perhaps there is a need for a wiki-based encyclopedia that allows in-depth articles and information by experts, but WP has decided that it is not it.