5 ms·

After twenty years of using wikipedia, my conclusion is this: in order to keep a single article in decent shape, you need both: 1) Constant vigilance, to monit

After twenty years of using wikipedia, my conclusion is this: in order to keep a single article in decent shape, you need both: 1) Constant vigilance, to monitor the article and revert drive-by edits putting up random nonsense. 2) Solid political backup from other long-time wikipedia editors, to fight off constant AFDs and DRN attempts to destroy whatever you've done. If at any point you slack off, the article will be gutted and replaced with garbage. This resembles any other human endeavor, in that you're valiantly resisting entropy while everyone in the world calls you a moron for even bothering. As a disclaimer, I suppose I don't see any way this could be technically "fixed", short of replacing humanity with something else.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
denton-scratch 5y ago
When I edit an article, it is automatically added to my watchlist, which currently has about 800 articles in it (most of which I don't care about; I should do some weeding). On an average day, maybe 20 of those articles are edited. Most of those edits are minor. Most vandalism has already been reverted before I see it. A substantial wrong edit needs my attention maybe once a week. When you speak of "valiantly resisting entropy", it sounds like a battle against the forces of Mordor. For me it's more like weeding the garden; a fairly pleasant activity, that's easiest if you do a little every day. You're still working against entropy, of course, but as you note that is like every other human endeavour. There are articles I care about that I don't edit. These are mostly articles that some person or group reckons they "own". I don't edit anything to do with the Middle East, for example, nor any article about nationalist politics. Life's too short. I agreee there's no technical fix for that problem. There doesn't seem to be a social fix either; such articles are presumably just going to remain unreliable. Perhaps Wikipedia just isn't suitable as a repository for certain kinds of information. Incidentally, articles on food seem to get nationalists going. The article on Biryani, for example is the subject of constant drive-bys, constantly flipping back and forth between India, Persia and Pakistan.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
raxxorrax 5y ago
> constant AFDs and DRN attempts what does this mean? I think the edit history is quite harmless on this article at least.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

denton-scratch 5y ago

When I edit an article, it is automatically added to my watchlist, which currently has about 800 articles in it (most of which I don't care about; I should do some weeding). On an average day, maybe 20 of those articles are edited. Most of those edits are minor. Most vandalism has already been reverted before I see it. A substantial wrong edit needs my attention maybe once a week. When you speak of "valiantly resisting entropy", it sounds like a battle against the forces of Mordor. For me it's more like weeding the garden; a fairly pleasant activity, that's easiest if you do a little every day. You're still working against entropy, of course, but as you note that is like every other human endeavour. There are articles I care about that I don't edit. These are mostly articles that some person or group reckons they "own". I don't edit anything to do with the Middle East, for example, nor any article about nationalist politics. Life's too short. I agreee there's no technical fix for that problem. There doesn't seem to be a social fix either; such articles are presumably just going to remain unreliable. Perhaps Wikipedia just isn't suitable as a repository for certain kinds of information. Incidentally, articles on food seem to get nationalists going. The article on Biryani, for example is the subject of constant drive-bys, constantly flipping back and forth between India, Persia and Pakistan.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

raxxorrax 5y ago

> constant AFDs and DRN attempts what does this mean? I think the edit history is quite harmless on this article at least.