4 ms·

There must be more to the story than that. I've made many edits and I don't recall any being deleted. Maybe they didn't follow the rules.

solresol 5y ago
It matches my experience. I can update pages about some topics (e.g. backup, tape drives, backup products) and nothing gets deleted or changed. But there are others where everything I update gets reverted with a comment like "reverted good faith edit from ____"
- dataviz1000 5y ago
  This might be a case of the Law of triviality[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
- yorwba 5y ago
  I think the expected reaction to having your good faith edits reverted is to reconsider whether it's an improvement to the article, and if it is, reapply it and potentially start a discussion on the talk page. If they keep reverting, they'll eventually get blocked from doing so.
input_sh 5y ago
From that short description I'm pretty sure it's related to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Relationship_between_the_subject,_the_article,_and_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_livin... In short, Wikipedia tries to discourage writing about yourself, which also applies to doing so through a representative.
oxfordmale 5y ago
Apparently editors identifying as a woman get rolled back far more often then men. This issue also effects some pages more than others. Corporate pages are often maintained by marketing companies that will monitor for changes that they perceive to be negative for their client. On the other hand changes to more technical topic tend to go unchallenged.
- dataviz1000 5y ago
  > Apparently editors identifying as a woman get rolled back far more often then men. I'm not a scientist, however, this sounds like it could be a legitimate study. If it is, what is the control group? 50 men doing the same?
  - oxfordmale 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - belorn 5y ago
      Don't be lazy. The actually data, as given in the study, is that the first 1 edit has a 2% higher rate of reverting than males, with each further edit a decreased revert rate to the point where female users are less likely to be reverted than male users once they hit their 16th edit. The statement that "Apparently editors identifying as a woman get rolled back far more often then men" and the actually research result is quite far from each other.
    - stickyricky 5y ago
      I don't trust this source. The article is on a website with a well-known gender bias[1]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia
mellosouls 5y ago
Happens an awful lot with "off message" edits that run counter to the political bias of the general Wiki editor demographic.
belorn 5y ago
There are three major reasons why those get deleted. 1: Intent matters and advocacy is not permitted on Wikipedia. A lot of people don't like this rule or think it can be ignored if they don't demand payment for it. 2: You can't editing Wikipedia to bring awareness of something while at the same time fulfill the notability requirements. The top 50 academics are important for their fields, and can also be completely unknown for the rest of the world. As an example, people in sport, music and cinema are much more common to have an Wikipedia article about them then academics. This does not mean academics are less important to society, but it does reflect notability. 3: As others has marked, writing a article about yourself or by a representative is heavily discouraged. This runs in the same vein as advocacy.
- enchiridion 5y ago
  It's interesting to think that the event of these scientists doing these edits is probably morale enough for its own entry.
  - belorn 5y ago
    Yes, and events like that can have enduring notability given enough third-party coverage. In this specific case I tried to search for the article/event, but neither of the search engine gave me any results, to the point where I now would like a source from gscott about that story.

solresol 5y ago

It matches my experience. I can update pages about some topics (e.g. backup, tape drives, backup products) and nothing gets deleted or changed. But there are others where everything I update gets reverted with a comment like "reverted good faith edit from ____"

dataviz1000 5y ago
This might be a case of the Law of triviality[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
yorwba 5y ago
I think the expected reaction to having your good faith edits reverted is to reconsider whether it's an improvement to the article, and if it is, reapply it and potentially start a discussion on the talk page. If they keep reverting, they'll eventually get blocked from doing so.

input_sh 5y ago

From that short description I'm pretty sure it's related to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Relationship_between_the_subject,_the_article,_and_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_livin... In short, Wikipedia tries to discourage writing about yourself, which also applies to doing so through a representative.

oxfordmale 5y ago

Apparently editors identifying as a woman get rolled back far more often then men. This issue also effects some pages more than others. Corporate pages are often maintained by marketing companies that will monitor for changes that they perceive to be negative for their client. On the other hand changes to more technical topic tend to go unchallenged.

dataviz1000 5y ago
> Apparently editors identifying as a woman get rolled back far more often then men. I'm not a scientist, however, this sounds like it could be a legitimate study. If it is, what is the control group? 50 men doing the same?
- oxfordmale 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - belorn 5y ago
    Don't be lazy. The actually data, as given in the study, is that the first 1 edit has a 2% higher rate of reverting than males, with each further edit a decreased revert rate to the point where female users are less likely to be reverted than male users once they hit their 16th edit. The statement that "Apparently editors identifying as a woman get rolled back far more often then men" and the actually research result is quite far from each other.
  - stickyricky 5y ago
    I don't trust this source. The article is on a website with a well-known gender bias[1]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia

mellosouls 5y ago

Happens an awful lot with "off message" edits that run counter to the political bias of the general Wiki editor demographic.

belorn 5y ago

There are three major reasons why those get deleted. 1: Intent matters and advocacy is not permitted on Wikipedia. A lot of people don't like this rule or think it can be ignored if they don't demand payment for it. 2: You can't editing Wikipedia to bring awareness of something while at the same time fulfill the notability requirements. The top 50 academics are important for their fields, and can also be completely unknown for the rest of the world. As an example, people in sport, music and cinema are much more common to have an Wikipedia article about them then academics. This does not mean academics are less important to society, but it does reflect notability. 3: As others has marked, writing a article about yourself or by a representative is heavily discouraged. This runs in the same vein as advocacy.

enchiridion 5y ago
It's interesting to think that the event of these scientists doing these edits is probably morale enough for its own entry.
- belorn 5y ago
  Yes, and events like that can have enduring notability given enough third-party coverage. In this specific case I tried to search for the article/event, but neither of the search engine gave me any results, to the point where I now would like a source from gscott about that story.