4 ms·
Or, y'know, actually employ a qualified librarian to do the role. /smh Librarians (the real ones, not the trolley pushing assistants) despair at Wikipedia. The
by Jaruzel 7y ago
Or, y'know, actually employ a qualified librarian to do the role. /smh
Librarians (the real ones, not the trolley pushing assistants) despair at Wikipedia. There have been many reports[1] of Librarians who are subject matter experts correcting the Wikipedia pages of which they are an expert in, only to end up in a edit wars with seasoned Wikipedia authoritarians who revert the Librarians edits because they are wrong(!). As such a lot of Librarians won't give Wikipedia the time of day, which is a real shame as these people are the real authority on their chosen subjects.
---
[1] No I don't have links; you'll have to ask my partner.
- Angostura 7y ago> There have been many reports [citation needed]
- thebooktocome 7y agoHere's one (that links a second one): https://twitter.com/cfiesler/status/1201246456599859200?s=20 https://twitter.com/cfiesler/status/1201246456599859200?s=20
- Angostura 7y agoThank you - enlightening and disturbing.
- belorn 7y agoI am not very surprised given the initial motivation. She gave herself a quest to do political activism by editing Wikipedia, something with Wikipedia project generally looks at with suspicion and hostility. I am not sure how well that translate to an librarian fixing errors and lifting decent covered topics with expert knowledge.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- flir 7y ago"wrong" or "unsourced"? It's an important distinction when playing the Wikipedia game.
- thebooktocome 7y agoIt literally doesn't matter. A certain kind of Wikipedia editor only cares about deletionism, and will do any rules lawyering necessary to remove content they think isn't worthy.
- belorn 7y agoIts a bit like law enforcement. Certain kind of police only care about arresting people, and will just summon any law necessary to justify the arrest. The question becomes on how we perceive the majority of cases, if the rule of law still function, and if the amount of energy to defends one own rights is justifiable in order to not leave the community and find a better place. In the case of Wikipedia I usually find that significant contributions require some energy in order to convince others that it should be added to the project, but in the majority of cases the enforcement is done in good faith (like most of moderation here on HN).
- cbm-vic-20 7y agoI wish we'd hire a gang of librarians to maintain our internal corporate wiki.
- teddyh 7y agoPeople with actual authority should know better than to try and write simply by asserting their own authority; they should be able to source their statements and give proper references, like professionals. It’s when they don’t do that, and treat Wikipedia like their own private blog, that trouble ensues: Other Wikipedia editor and admins demand proper references, which these people interpret as an affront to their personal expertise, and it goes downhill from there. Instead, people with actual expertise should realize that for Wikipedia, their expertise is not in the actual subject matter, but their value as experts is instead in knowing where to find proper references to things which most people might know already about the subject. This is where they can really contribute. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Expert_editors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Expert_editors
- Jaruzel 7y agoDid I say not-referenced? Trust me, Librarians are the best people for referencing stuff - it's their job.