4 ms·

> I think we can all agree it’s quite unimportant for Wikipedia to be microsecond up to date, and the people (...) I don't understand your comment. The only co

> I think we can all agree it’s quite unimportant for Wikipedia to be microsecond up to date, and the people (...) I don't understand your comment. The only concrete grievance you have is that you feel some hypothetical people who you depict as being obsessed with being first might not have "the best reasons", and based on your personal suspicion your suggestion is to lock pages? Supposedly that's a very last resort thing for a wiki, whose whole purpose and responsibility is to let communities freely edit articles as their feel like it. Why exactly do you feel it's desirable to subvert the whole point of a wiki?

SilverBirch 4y ago
Well firstly, I don't think I'm suggesting we "subvert the whole point of wikipedia" or atleast, if that's what I'm suggesting, that the hierarchical moderation system of wikipedia has already done that. What I'm saying is that if your goal is to have an accurate record, then you want to disincentivize drive-by edits, and incentivize high qualtiy content. This sort of rush of "is-was" replacement is the definition of low quality. It adds nothing of value to the article, but muddies up the history of the edits. It has real implications, by definition any first edit is going to have to source news articles that have a speed-to-publish bias, rather than a requirement for quality for example. There's nothing the speed gives you other than a fight over nothing of value. So why not just... not?