4 ms·

I posted the Wikipedia article hoping you and others like you would fill out what is an obviously incomplete list.

Der_Einzige 4y ago
If you mean filling it out on wikipedia they will have little to no hope unless they are accepted by the wikipedia editorial politiburo.
- daanlo 4y ago
  This is weird. I have made edits with a new account on articles and they were accepted. Not very significant articles, maybe.
- paulpauper 4y ago
  It's the same thing with stack overflow/exchange, in which good questions and answers not uncommonly get downvoted and or removed. I think there is an epidemic of petty academic tyrants. These are people who are objectively quite smart but maybe not as accomplished as they wished or hoped so they take out their frustrations on others in the only way they can have control in a world in which they are otherwise irrelevant and powerless. Universities , graduate departments churn out so many students relative to the supply of good paying jobs annually that not everyone will be able to achieve their idealization of career success. What I do know: the TED talk stuff will not work on these people.
gzer0 4y ago
I have tried adding edits, many that I thought would have been beneficial as being part of that particular industry / having intimate knowledge of a topic; only to be rejected by some moderator that could not bother to understand the topic. It's infuriating. I've stopped trying to contribute.
- paulpauper 4y ago
  I have tried adding edits, many that I thought would have been beneficial as being part of that particular industry / having intimate knowledge of a topic; only to be rejected by some moderator that could not bother to understand the topic. yup this is a common problem with Wikipedia.
- zeruch 4y ago
  "It's infuriating. I've stopped trying to contribute." You aren't the only one (albeit in my case, for more mundane/esoteric topics)
- nsajko 4y ago
  > only to be rejected by some moderator that could not bother to understand the topic This is a tired trope, and it shows you're the one who can't be bothered to understand Wikipedia. Wikipedia is basically an anarchy (most of the time...), meaning that it's unlikely that the person who "rejected" your changes had elevated privileges, it was probably just another editor like you. Incompetent and/or malicious admins do exist on Wikipedia, but its much less likely you encountered one of those as opposed to just a regular user who disagreed with your change. I'm neither a fan nor a Wikipedia apologist (WP has loads of issues), just trying to explain some basics. BTW, I assumed you meant "Wikipedia admin" when you said "moderator"; real moderators (Wikimedia employees) do exist, but they're even less likely to encounter. On the other hand, you say: > having intimate knowledge of a topic These kinds of edits sometimes get reverted on Wikipedia, and rightly so. I'm sure you understand that anyone can pretend to have "intimate knowledge of a topic", ideally edits should be backed with good references/sources instead of the editor's (unverifiable) knowledge.
  - bobcostas55 4y ago
    The de facto reality of how wikipedia operates is that certain people own certain topics, usually with an agenda in mind. If you try to push back they call in their friends and shout you down. The actual merits of the edits are irrelevant. The anarchy stuff is just marketing nonsense.
    - mortenlwk 4y ago
      Is that not anarchy though?
    - nsajko 4y ago
      I basically agree with you, except for your last sentence: > The anarchy stuff is just marketing nonsense. With this sentence you're implying that Wikipedians want the public to believe that Wikipedia is anarchic, but this is incorrect, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_anarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_no... The link is a Wikipedia policy, so pretty much as official as it gets. The sad truth is that Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc are mostly irrelevant to the functioning of Wikipedia. The real de facto reality of how Wikipedia operates is that it's a complicated system with most decisions being made being local to only a single or a few articles. Furthermore, nothing is set in stone at Wikipedia, be it content or policy, they all change with the whims of the editors currently active at the relevant place and time. Which is also why policy is mostly powerless.

If you mean filling it out on wikipedia they will have little to no hope unless they are accepted by the wikipedia editorial politiburo.

daanlo 4y ago
This is weird. I have made edits with a new account on articles and they were accepted. Not very significant articles, maybe.
paulpauper 4y ago
It's the same thing with stack overflow/exchange, in which good questions and answers not uncommonly get downvoted and or removed. I think there is an epidemic of petty academic tyrants. These are people who are objectively quite smart but maybe not as accomplished as they wished or hoped so they take out their frustrations on others in the only way they can have control in a world in which they are otherwise irrelevant and powerless. Universities , graduate departments churn out so many students relative to the supply of good paying jobs annually that not everyone will be able to achieve their idealization of career success. What I do know: the TED talk stuff will not work on these people.

gzer0 4y ago

I have tried adding edits, many that I thought would have been beneficial as being part of that particular industry / having intimate knowledge of a topic; only to be rejected by some moderator that could not bother to understand the topic. It's infuriating. I've stopped trying to contribute.

paulpauper 4y ago
I have tried adding edits, many that I thought would have been beneficial as being part of that particular industry / having intimate knowledge of a topic; only to be rejected by some moderator that could not bother to understand the topic. yup this is a common problem with Wikipedia.
zeruch 4y ago
"It's infuriating. I've stopped trying to contribute." You aren't the only one (albeit in my case, for more mundane/esoteric topics)
nsajko 4y ago
> only to be rejected by some moderator that could not bother to understand the topic This is a tired trope, and it shows you're the one who can't be bothered to understand Wikipedia. Wikipedia is basically an anarchy (most of the time...), meaning that it's unlikely that the person who "rejected" your changes had elevated privileges, it was probably just another editor like you. Incompetent and/or malicious admins do exist on Wikipedia, but its much less likely you encountered one of those as opposed to just a regular user who disagreed with your change. I'm neither a fan nor a Wikipedia apologist (WP has loads of issues), just trying to explain some basics. BTW, I assumed you meant "Wikipedia admin" when you said "moderator"; real moderators (Wikimedia employees) do exist, but they're even less likely to encounter. On the other hand, you say: > having intimate knowledge of a topic These kinds of edits sometimes get reverted on Wikipedia, and rightly so. I'm sure you understand that anyone can pretend to have "intimate knowledge of a topic", ideally edits should be backed with good references/sources instead of the editor's (unverifiable) knowledge.
- bobcostas55 4y ago
  The de facto reality of how wikipedia operates is that certain people own certain topics, usually with an agenda in mind. If you try to push back they call in their friends and shout you down. The actual merits of the edits are irrelevant. The anarchy stuff is just marketing nonsense.
  - mortenlwk 4y ago
    Is that not anarchy though?
  - nsajko 4y ago
    I basically agree with you, except for your last sentence: > The anarchy stuff is just marketing nonsense. With this sentence you're implying that Wikipedians want the public to believe that Wikipedia is anarchic, but this is incorrect, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_anarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_no... The link is a Wikipedia policy, so pretty much as official as it gets. The sad truth is that Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc are mostly irrelevant to the functioning of Wikipedia. The real de facto reality of how Wikipedia operates is that it's a complicated system with most decisions being made being local to only a single or a few articles. Furthermore, nothing is set in stone at Wikipedia, be it content or policy, they all change with the whims of the editors currently active at the relevant place and time. Which is also why policy is mostly powerless.