3 ms·
I would claim you've got it skewed, especially for someone posting from Hacker News. Let me try and reformulate it: If you drop a URL in that's fine, one of o
by jerrya 15y ago
I would claim you've got it skewed, especially for someone posting from Hacker News. Let me try and reformulate it:
If you drop a URL in that's fine, one of our bots will come by, not to chastise your edit as possible vandalism, but to fill out the journal entry for you and download the url and archive it.
- Enlightenment 15y agoThe biggest problem with wikipedia edits are people NOT following the rules. People act like they can make CRAPPY edits in any way THEY like and then EXPECT those CRAPPY edits to stick. If you add a bunch of text WITHOUT a reference citation, then whine because someone deletes your text, then it is YOUR own fault for NOT adding a reference. Most people need to quit whining like a bunch of little girls and edit articles the correct way.
- _delirium 15y agoThat is basically what happens, at least some of the time. The bots are mostly volunteer-run rather than something official or consistent (framework code and an API are open), but I've definitely had bots come by and improve my citations, usually doing things like converting a bare nytimes.com or jstor.com URL into a proper citation. An interesting project for HN folks might be to write bots to take care of stuff that isn't currently being automated. Of course, perhaps instead we want the Wikimedia Foundation doing more of this. They're moving in that direction to some extent, though I don't much like that. In the past I've argued against that direction, because I think one of Wikipedia's strengths is its open, volunteer-run nature, rather than being a professionalized/bureaucratized NGO type organization with paid staff and centralized organization--- I'd rather WMF just ran the servers.