4 ms·
It makes me wonder why are editorial pieces like this one hosted on official wikipedia page. Branding a discussion as a lame diminishes the importance of the d
by omega3 6y ago
It makes me wonder why are editorial pieces like this one hosted on official wikipedia page.
Branding a discussion as a lame diminishes the importance of the discussion. Taking as an example Chopin, the whole importance of of him being considered a Pole is reduced (you can even see it in the comments in this thread) to accusations of nationalism and tribalism. I'm worried that next time someone tries to take a more nuanced, more informed approach to editing they will stop themselves in the fear of being included in a piece like this.
- huskyr 6y agoNote that this article is not hosted in the official 'article' namespace, but in the 'Wikipedia' namespace (hence the Wikipedia: in the article title), which is specifically reserved for non-encyclopaedic content, including editorial pieces and opinions.
- omega3 6y agoIt's hosted on wikipedia.org, follows the stylesheet for Wikipedia articles and below it states: "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
- unethical_ban 6y agoThe point made is that it is on a kind of "meta" article. In book terms, imagine it being in some kind of "Extras" volume of the Encyclopaedia Wikipedia, not under "L" for "Lame Edit Wars".
- chris_wot 6y agoNo, it’s not in the main article namespace. Meta discussions happen here. Anything with Wikipedia: in front of them are not articles. Some places are horrific. The admin’s noticeboard (incidents) is horrible. Sadly it was an initiative I started over a decade ago.
- bityard 6y agoWhat makes these arguments lame is that they are _extremely unimportant_ in the grand scheme of things. People take up sides on trivial topics as a hobby or escape. This article is an excellent summation of how silly and petty people get when arguing over minutia online. > I'm worried that next time someone tries to take a more nuanced, more informed approach to editing they will stop themselves in the fear of being included in a piece like this. Good! That's exactly why this article exists. Because for every person who _doesn't_ come across this article and draws a conclusion based on a nuanced, informed approach, another person will disagree with them because they drew the _exact opposite_ conclusion based on their own nuanced, informed approach. And then the debate will devolve into an entry on Lamest Edit Wars.