3 ms·
Just a reminder that you're only assuming that the information that arkades would like to add is even accurate. (No offense to them, I'm sure it is, just pointi
by john-radio 6y ago
Just a reminder that you're only assuming that the information that arkades would like to add is even accurate. (No offense to them, I'm sure it is, just pointing out that the process of editing that encyclopedia is burdensome for a reason).
- arkades 6y agoNo offense taken. Weeding out for accuracy is a fair and important concern, and there's no reason to assume a random person on the internet is the expert they believe themselves to be. Though I'd point out that unless wikipedia has a team of people whose expertise equals or at least vaguely approximates my own (or that of any expert that might contribute), I have to raise the question of whether that's really what they're filtering, or simply something that superficially looks like accuracy to someone unfamiliar with the material. It also assumes that the inaccuracy of the current articles is less than the inaccuracy of articles under a hypothetical alternative moderation policy. That might be true, or it might not - chase away enough contributors and you're left with one-sided, stale information. I imagine that's fine for an article on the simpsons, but maybe not great if you're looking up leukemias.
- ivosaur 6y agoAnd then you end up running into a moderator who just refuses to accept factual well-sourced additions based on their own incorrect knowledge. I'm still bitter from my last attempt to contribute.
- dependenttypes 6y agoI do not contribute to wikipedia because I dislike the politics there but I often browse it and see content in technical articles that helped me in the past magically disappearing, or wiki articles getting deleted along with their history because the moderators were too clueless about a certain topic.