3 ms·

For me, it isn't worth expending the mental energy editing Wikipedia. I'd be exhausted seeing the arbitrary deletion of articles like this; fighting Wikipedia p

by QUFB 6y ago

For me, it isn't worth expending the mental energy editing Wikipedia. I'd be exhausted seeing the arbitrary deletion of articles like this; fighting Wikipedia policy warriors, who have all the WP:TLA and WP:FLA rules memorized; fighting PoV warriors, the successful ones who are also policy warriors; fighting cliques who take unofficial ownership of articles. And maybe it's just me, but I don't get the impression that most very light editors of Wikipedia have even made a single proposal for deletion.

_4s1k 6y ago
I don't have the rules memorized. I didn't know what WP:TLA or WP:FLA was until you mentioned them, and I had to look up the rules for notability of events. It's also worth pointing out that the conflict and tedium you anticipated just didn't materialize. An anonymous editor reverted my proposal with a one-line rebuttal and that looks like the end of the story. I know the phenomenon you are describing, and it is real. I just don't think it's a fair description of what happened here. I made a well-intentioned editorial decision, and when I saw grumbling here, I went out of my way to acknowledge my fallibility and to point out my action could be reversed. I wasn't expecting to be called out as an example of Everything Wrong With Wikipedia These Days, though that's exactly what the comments and downvotes in this thread feel like. I'm pretty bummed about it.
- strogonoff 6y ago
  Thanks for taking the trouble. I felt tricked, since posting a link directly to the video would have sufficed. I suppose a submission that links to Wikipedia attracts more clicks and upvotes. However, the article has very little substance and looks to be essentially a wrapper around a YouTube video link.
  - andybak 6y ago
    Although the Wikipedia article was thin, the video lacked any context (especially due to the way YouTube hides the description text on many devices). I probably should have linked to the Reddit post but that had even less content and I didn't have it to hand.

by QUFB 6y ago

_4s1k 6y ago

I don't have the rules memorized. I didn't know what WP:TLA or WP:FLA was until you mentioned them, and I had to look up the rules for notability of events. It's also worth pointing out that the conflict and tedium you anticipated just didn't materialize. An anonymous editor reverted my proposal with a one-line rebuttal and that looks like the end of the story. I know the phenomenon you are describing, and it is real. I just don't think it's a fair description of what happened here. I made a well-intentioned editorial decision, and when I saw grumbling here, I went out of my way to acknowledge my fallibility and to point out my action could be reversed. I wasn't expecting to be called out as an example of Everything Wrong With Wikipedia These Days, though that's exactly what the comments and downvotes in this thread feel like. I'm pretty bummed about it.

strogonoff 6y ago
Thanks for taking the trouble. I felt tricked, since posting a link directly to the video would have sufficed. I suppose a submission that links to Wikipedia attracts more clicks and upvotes. However, the article has very little substance and looks to be essentially a wrapper around a YouTube video link.
- andybak 6y ago
  Although the Wikipedia article was thin, the video lacked any context (especially due to the way YouTube hides the description text on many devices). I probably should have linked to the Reddit post but that had even less content and I didn't have it to hand.