3 ms·
Nice that you talk about edits (or new articles?) that you have not seen. Spoken like a true Wikipedist: be hostile to anyone who is outside of the clique and d
by rvba 5y ago
Nice that you talk about edits (or new articles?) that you have not seen. Spoken like a true Wikipedist: be hostile to anyone who is outside of the clique and dares to criticize it.
The hostile speed deletions and reverts applied to new users are never happen admins, or members of the clique - even if the quality of things they add is very, very low.
I even wrote above that there are ways to fight it: for example by randomizing the names of users who made the edits.
Although Im quite sure that Wikipedia is full of sad people, who will spend a lot of time and effort to still be able to bypass such a system.
What is even more sad, is that in this particular discussions, you have 3 different users who wrote that it happened to them... just look to other replies to the top comment.
- visarga 5y agoTen years ago I wrote a bunch of articles in a niche of my interest. One in particular was very complex, I spent a whole month doing research for it, posted citations for everything. When I came back a few years later it was unrecognizable. Now it barely has anything of what I wrote in it. So I know how it is to see your work trashed and how difficult the 'pro' editors can be. That's why I don't write there anymore, it's like writing on sand. Even so Wikipedia is still one of my top 3 sites. I'm doing NLP and I see the Wikipedia corpus used in hundreds of papers. It's useful in many ways.