3 ms·

> an editor [...] stated he could only allow changes to the "facts" if my SO could point to an online source (a credible one he said). That's plainly false, ho

by lucb1e 5y ago

> an editor [...] stated he could only allow changes to the "facts" if my SO could point to an online source (a credible one he said). That's plainly false, how many Wikipedia articles have (annoying, I'll admit) offline references to books, papers, and other things that are only available under specific terms and conditions, typically after some payment? You don't have to own anything's copyright to reference it. (In many jurisdictions you'd also be allowed to publish excerpts as fair use, that would make this easier but that's not a prerequisite here anyway.) And does Wikipedia even have an approval system? I thought either you have permission to edit a page or you don't (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19&action=edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19&action=e...). This whole situation sounds quite odd. Not that I haven't dealt with overzealous page protectors myself that have some "I did a million-and-one edits and am holier than thou" status and will revert anything that changes their perception of the world. I don't disbelieve the situation in general, just those details seem odd to me.

sdoering 5y ago
> That's plainly false, Thanks for denying experience. You could have said: "That should not be the case." But yet he kept denying changes. > offline references to books, papers, and other things that are only available under specific terms and conditions, typically after some payment I was talking about birth certificates, official but personal documents, things like birthday greetings personally signed by Erich Honecker, a Radio interview done in the 70ies at a GDR radio station were only one last tape of the recording exists in family archives. Nothing of that is anyhow publicly available. Whenever we proposed changes we were shut down by this person. They felt (or were - I have too little insights into the hierarchy of Wikipedia and don't want to actually) to be righteously empowered to change back any change were one could not provide citable proof. And that is actually a point I agree with. But he also was not willing to accept/provide a way to proof how "facts" in the entry were wrong. If they were missing I wouldn't have an issue. But they were already wrong in the cited source and we had the original documents to proof that. He just wasn't willing to look at them.
- lucb1e 5y ago
  > Thanks for denying experience That's not what I meant. Was already thinking whether this was clear enough or if I should edit... apparently I should have edited. Apologies. I meant it the way that pxeger1 mentioned in their sibling comment: the person denying your (SO's) edits was saying something that is clearly not true.
  - sdoering 5y ago
    Thanks for clarification. Very much appreciated.
- pxeger1 5y ago
  > > That's plainly false I think this was referring to the claim by the other editor - that he "could only allow the changes if ...", was false. Not to your whole comment
- mst 5y ago
  > Nothing of that is anyhow publicly available. Therein the problem. Your situation sucks, and I'm genuinely sorry about it. But I'm not sure I can think of a way to change that policy that would be a net win overall. If anything I feel like you're more collateral damage of copyright law than wikipedia policy here, but I understand that even assuming I'm right about that, that doesn't make the specifics sucks any less. Bah.

by lucb1e 5y ago

sdoering 5y ago

> That's plainly false, Thanks for denying experience. You could have said: "That should not be the case." But yet he kept denying changes. > offline references to books, papers, and other things that are only available under specific terms and conditions, typically after some payment I was talking about birth certificates, official but personal documents, things like birthday greetings personally signed by Erich Honecker, a Radio interview done in the 70ies at a GDR radio station were only one last tape of the recording exists in family archives. Nothing of that is anyhow publicly available. Whenever we proposed changes we were shut down by this person. They felt (or were - I have too little insights into the hierarchy of Wikipedia and don't want to actually) to be righteously empowered to change back any change were one could not provide citable proof. And that is actually a point I agree with. But he also was not willing to accept/provide a way to proof how "facts" in the entry were wrong. If they were missing I wouldn't have an issue. But they were already wrong in the cited source and we had the original documents to proof that. He just wasn't willing to look at them.

lucb1e 5y ago
> Thanks for denying experience That's not what I meant. Was already thinking whether this was clear enough or if I should edit... apparently I should have edited. Apologies. I meant it the way that pxeger1 mentioned in their sibling comment: the person denying your (SO's) edits was saying something that is clearly not true.
- sdoering 5y ago
  Thanks for clarification. Very much appreciated.
pxeger1 5y ago
> > That's plainly false I think this was referring to the claim by the other editor - that he "could only allow the changes if ...", was false. Not to your whole comment
mst 5y ago
> Nothing of that is anyhow publicly available. Therein the problem. Your situation sucks, and I'm genuinely sorry about it. But I'm not sure I can think of a way to change that policy that would be a net win overall. If anything I feel like you're more collateral damage of copyright law than wikipedia policy here, but I understand that even assuming I'm right about that, that doesn't make the specifics sucks any less. Bah.