5 ms·
I concur. I've known people who have wanted to add information to wikipedia and then go, "Why bother? It'll just get reverted by wikipedia moderators or somethi
by ajkirwin 18y ago
I concur. I've known people who have wanted to add information to wikipedia and then go, "Why bother? It'll just get reverted by wikipedia moderators or something. Waste of my time."
- marijn 18y agoNot to mention that, even when you state something as obvious as 2 + 2 equals 4, some anxious amateur editor will add a [citation needed], along with a few other deprecating warnings.
- JesseAldridge 18y agoWell, citations are pretty important.
- asobi 18y agoCase in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_Mine:_Adam_Freeland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_Mine:_Adam_Freeland Within a day, two requests to delete filed for different reasons, equally bullshit - probably because both requests were filed by bots. The burden of proof should NOT be 100% on the writer. When an article can be "speedy deleted" with no evidence of a good reason, there's something seriously wrong. And it does make you wonder: "why do I waste my time?"