6 ms·

I agree, the Wikipedia process is very slow, and often times a lot of discussion happens before something is finally done. That’s a natural consequence of a pro

I agree, the Wikipedia process is very slow, and often times a lot of discussion happens before something is finally done. That’s a natural consequence of a process where consensus, reliable sourcing, and a desire to be neutral and accurate determines what is acceptable and not acceptable. I much prefer the process to what Reddit does, which is, in many subreddits, to quickly ban anyone who goes against the group think of a given subreddit, even if the subreddit is wrong. In Wikipedia, as a rule of thumb, is that the truth does win out, even if it takes a while to get there. As one example, while Tara Reade’s now-discredited accusation [1] against Joe Biden was all over numerous subreddits and presented as objective fact, [2] the Wikipedia was taking a slower, more measured approach to reporting the accusations which ultimately ended up being far more accurate than what Reddit was doing at the time. [3] As another case, a lot of noise was made over how horrible the Wikipedia was because Clarice Phelps didn’t have a Wikipedia article. She has one today. [4] [1] This probably needs a citation. How about https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-74-former-biden-staffers-think-about-tara-reades-allegations https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-74-former-biden-s... or, yeah, since it’s so heavily sourced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_allegation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_sexual_assault_alleg... [2] For example, https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/it5n91/multiple_witnesses_have_come_forward_and_verified/ https://old.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/it5n91/multip... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_10#Tara_Reade_alleged_Biden_%22penetrated_%5Bher%5D_with_his_fingers%22_without_her_consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joe_Biden/Archive_10#Tara... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarice_Phelps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarice_Phelps [5] Wikipedia has a hard time with allowing articles about cool open source projects and languages. I agree this is really annoying, since it means I have to dig through GitHub, forums like this one, or (for fonts) Google Fonts to find high quality open source programs or content. [6] Adding footnotes without a reference to the footnote is an old alt.sysadmin.recovery tradition

leephillips 5y ago
You sidestepped the point about disingenuously pointing out that the articles that the original commenter was very clear had been already taken down, were not there. Do you think that being better than Reddit is a high bar?
- strenholme 5y ago
  I do not think I side steped the issue. Of the three issues the OP originally brought up, he only stated that one of those issues were resolved by the Wikipedia (and he quoted Reddit instead of a more direct source, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Dozens%2CThousands_upon_thousands_of_unnecessary_redirects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Neelix_active_again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive906#Neelix-created_redirects,_yet_again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no... ). While the post was quite heated and it’s hard to separate facts from expressions of anger, to me he strongly implied the other two haven’t been dealt with or resolved, while, in fact, all the issues are resolved or are being discussed, in Wikipedia’s typical style of discussing things to death (I remember when discussing whether to host pro-pedophile advocacy was a thing on Wikipedia, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pedophile_movement/Archive_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pedophile_movement/Archiv... ) I brought up Reddit because the OP brought up Reddit; I agree they are horribly inaccurate, and if something I read on Reddit makes me angry, I check other sources to make sure I’m not getting worked up over a lie.
  - leephillips 5y ago
    I believe you did. In rvba’s item 2A, he is clear that the issue was addressed, after “an incredible amount of time”. Your reply provides the information that the articles no longer exist on the platform, as if it were a refutation of rvba’s point. This is what I am calling disingenuous, and I think my characterization is warranted. EDIT: But perhaps I am wrong or confused. Wouldn’t be the first time. In that case, please clarify what, exactly, was the purpose of your citations that began “Those articles aren’t on the Wikipedia:”.
    - strenholme 5y ago
      Thank you for the discussion. I have edited my parent posts to better clarify my position. For the record, I am no fan of Wikipedia’s “Deletionist” movement, and didn’t edit there for years because I did not approve of their wide spread deletions.
Kim_Bruning 5y ago
I wonder how many people have been to the scary devil monastery, or still know what it is.
- strenholme 5y ago
  Yeah, I used to love that place. Alas, the last time I was there, I got in a bad flame war which left a sour taste in my mouth. These days, the place is (mostly) dead, although they did have a nice eulogy for Brian Kantor (who actually killfiled me because of said flame war) [1] It seems to have picked up some during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020

leephillips 5y ago

You sidestepped the point about disingenuously pointing out that the articles that the original commenter was very clear had been already taken down, were not there. Do you think that being better than Reddit is a high bar?

strenholme 5y ago
I do not think I side steped the issue. Of the three issues the OP originally brought up, he only stated that one of those issues were resolved by the Wikipedia (and he quoted Reddit instead of a more direct source, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Dozens%2CThousands_upon_thousands_of_unnecessary_redirects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Neelix_active_again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive906#Neelix-created_redirects,_yet_again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no... ). While the post was quite heated and it’s hard to separate facts from expressions of anger, to me he strongly implied the other two haven’t been dealt with or resolved, while, in fact, all the issues are resolved or are being discussed, in Wikipedia’s typical style of discussing things to death (I remember when discussing whether to host pro-pedophile advocacy was a thing on Wikipedia, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pedophile_movement/Archive_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pedophile_movement/Archiv... ) I brought up Reddit because the OP brought up Reddit; I agree they are horribly inaccurate, and if something I read on Reddit makes me angry, I check other sources to make sure I’m not getting worked up over a lie.
- leephillips 5y ago
  I believe you did. In rvba’s item 2A, he is clear that the issue was addressed, after “an incredible amount of time”. Your reply provides the information that the articles no longer exist on the platform, as if it were a refutation of rvba’s point. This is what I am calling disingenuous, and I think my characterization is warranted. EDIT: But perhaps I am wrong or confused. Wouldn’t be the first time. In that case, please clarify what, exactly, was the purpose of your citations that began “Those articles aren’t on the Wikipedia:”.
  - strenholme 5y ago
    Thank you for the discussion. I have edited my parent posts to better clarify my position. For the record, I am no fan of Wikipedia’s “Deletionist” movement, and didn’t edit there for years because I did not approve of their wide spread deletions.

Kim_Bruning 5y ago

I wonder how many people have been to the scary devil monastery, or still know what it is.

strenholme 5y ago
Yeah, I used to love that place. Alas, the last time I was there, I got in a bad flame war which left a sour taste in my mouth. These days, the place is (mostly) dead, although they did have a nice eulogy for Brian Kantor (who actually killfiled me because of said flame war) [1] It seems to have picked up some during the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020