3 ms·

> But ideally Wikipedia itself would build some internal mechanism It has WP:ANI, but it is hard to go against established editors, if they are not writing out

> But ideally Wikipedia itself would build some internal mechanism It has WP:ANI, but it is hard to go against established editors, if they are not writing outright lies or doing harassment. Say, if I want to edit a line from a summary of the Wikipedia page on a person which unfairly represents a person and the established editor thinks it makes sense, then I can't do anything. They are not writing misinformation as they will often have a source for it, but the tone and representation of that on the Wikipedia article can still be unfair. I would give specific examples here but then I would be accused of trying to influence talk pages with publicity on social media/forums. Moreover, as some of the talk pages have my comments, I don't want my online personas to be linked.

zozbot234 5y ago
> Say, if I want to edit a line from a summary of the Wikipedia page on a person which unfairly represents a person and the established editor thinks it makes sense, then I can't do anything. Of course you can. You can argue for your prferred wording on the talk page for the individual article, and a compromise can be reached. This is how this stuff works. Talk pages are critical to dealing with even the slightest amount of controversy, "reverts" are supposed to be emergency actions only.
- actuator 5y ago
  > You can argue for your prferred wording on the talk page for the individual article, and a compromise can be reached. This is how this stuff works. Talk pages are critical to dealing with even the slightest amount of controversy, "reverts" are supposed to be emergency actions only. I did try to argue for that but I was shut down as there was no way to agree what a fair representation is.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    There are established policies for that, actually. Ideally, the 'lead' section should accurately summarize what's already stated in the article and supported by appropriate sources.
davidgerard 5y ago
> I would give specific examples here but but then people would be able to assess your claims based on the evidence, and your hyperbole might not work out? You've alluded to discussions you claim to have had, and made claims about the people you argued with. (I bet I was one of them.) Are you able to at least link those? Your repeated refusal to say what you're talking about gives the impression you're blowing smoke.

zozbot234 5y ago

> Say, if I want to edit a line from a summary of the Wikipedia page on a person which unfairly represents a person and the established editor thinks it makes sense, then I can't do anything. Of course you can. You can argue for your prferred wording on the talk page for the individual article, and a compromise can be reached. This is how this stuff works. Talk pages are critical to dealing with even the slightest amount of controversy, "reverts" are supposed to be emergency actions only.

actuator 5y ago
> You can argue for your prferred wording on the talk page for the individual article, and a compromise can be reached. This is how this stuff works. Talk pages are critical to dealing with even the slightest amount of controversy, "reverts" are supposed to be emergency actions only. I did try to argue for that but I was shut down as there was no way to agree what a fair representation is.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  There are established policies for that, actually. Ideally, the 'lead' section should accurately summarize what's already stated in the article and supported by appropriate sources.

davidgerard 5y ago

> I would give specific examples here but but then people would be able to assess your claims based on the evidence, and your hyperbole might not work out? You've alluded to discussions you claim to have had, and made claims about the people you argued with. (I bet I was one of them.) Are you able to at least link those? Your repeated refusal to say what you're talking about gives the impression you're blowing smoke.