3 ms·

Even for things you'd think were uncontroversial, they are insufferable. A number of years ago I tried to fix some really obvious errors in the article that de

Even for things you'd think were uncontroversial, they are insufferable. A number of years ago I tried to fix some really obvious errors in the article that described the small(ish) company I worked for. I sourced my changes, generally with links to the authoritative source, and still most of them got reverted. By someone who had no actual connection to the company, even. I still browse wikipedia on occasion, due to ease of finding things, but I read everything with a very critical eye and keep in mind that I'm only getting one carefully curated version of reality. And it may be false even so.

shadowgovt 5y ago
Wikipedia has a moderately frustrating anti-elite / anti-self-promotion bias that will result in the site maintaining erroneous information added by natural third parties over true information added by those directly involved. Doesn't matter how true it is... If you're an employee of the company and get found out, your edits get reverted.
- jgwil2 5y ago
  Good point. I believe primary sources are flat-out banned, which could explain why those links didn't cut the mustard.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    No, primary sources are not banned on Wikipedia. The kinds of things I offered corrections on were simple and sourced off public filings. Like the relationship of the company with another -- our company bought another, but wikipedia claimed the other company bought ours. Another obvious mistake was the picture of our building. They put a picture of the building next door. There were a number of really egregious mistakes that I tried to correct, but I got a no-comment reversion of almost all of them. And in case you were wondering, at no time did I identify myself as an employee (and I was just a software guy anyway, not part of the marketing group), nor did they suggest that they knew I was.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      Some of those reversions are automatic or semi-automatic. If you did the edits from a corporate IP address, for example, people will run that stuff down, conclude the edits are conflict-of-interest (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations), and revert them regardless of content. It appears that what Wikipedia considers the correct course of action in that circumstance is to highlight the error on the talk page and let someone else fix it.
leephillips 5y ago
Wikipedia is useful for the lists of references at the end of articles and for finding public domain or CC licensed images. But there’s never a good reason to look at the text of a Wikipedia article. And, as you’ve found out, trying to improve the cesspool is a waste of time.

shadowgovt 5y ago

Wikipedia has a moderately frustrating anti-elite / anti-self-promotion bias that will result in the site maintaining erroneous information added by natural third parties over true information added by those directly involved. Doesn't matter how true it is... If you're an employee of the company and get found out, your edits get reverted.

jgwil2 5y ago
Good point. I believe primary sources are flat-out banned, which could explain why those links didn't cut the mustard.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  No, primary sources are not banned on Wikipedia. The kinds of things I offered corrections on were simple and sourced off public filings. Like the relationship of the company with another -- our company bought another, but wikipedia claimed the other company bought ours. Another obvious mistake was the picture of our building. They put a picture of the building next door. There were a number of really egregious mistakes that I tried to correct, but I got a no-comment reversion of almost all of them. And in case you were wondering, at no time did I identify myself as an employee (and I was just a software guy anyway, not part of the marketing group), nor did they suggest that they knew I was.
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    Some of those reversions are automatic or semi-automatic. If you did the edits from a corporate IP address, for example, people will run that stuff down, conclude the edits are conflict-of-interest (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations), and revert them regardless of content. It appears that what Wikipedia considers the correct course of action in that circumstance is to highlight the error on the talk page and let someone else fix it.

leephillips 5y ago

Wikipedia is useful for the lists of references at the end of articles and for finding public domain or CC licensed images. But there’s never a good reason to look at the text of a Wikipedia article. And, as you’ve found out, trying to improve the cesspool is a waste of time.