3 ms·

Is there a way to prevent people from doing petty and unnecessary vandalism to articles you've authored or are you pretty much at their mercy?

crote 4y ago
You can't, Wikipedia is pretty much entirely pedantry at this point. To give an example: a while back a semi-notable object in my local area burned down. It has a short Wikipedia page of a few hundred words, but it is not something anyone would actually care about. At 02:00AM (in the middle of the night) I added this to its Wikipedia page, citing a Tweet from the official fire department. Five minutes later the entire addition was removed, simply stating that "Twitter is not an acceptable source". Mind you, this is not an official policy: it is usually not allowed, but there are exceptions for instances like this. It was added back with less detail later on by a different user, who didn't even bother to cite any sources. So yeah, don't bother trying to contribute to Wikipedia, unless you are willing to fight for every single edit.
- NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
  If the Tweet that you cited was indeed from the official account of the local fire department, then the editor who reverted you was wrong. Twitter accounts are mostly unreliable sources, except when they are reliable: that is, when an official or verified account gives information about themselves. See WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SPS. The same goes for any such social media platform: YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, whatever. In fact, there are many TV news outlets who have official YouTube channels -- why wouldn't these be acceptable as reliable sources, just like a newspaper or a live TV broadcast?
  - crote 4y ago
    Yeah, but are you willing to fight a "power user" over some trivial edit like this? I, for one, have better things to do with my time.
- bombcar 4y ago
  It is absolutely pointless to bother contributing to Wikipedia. Either it’s so notable someone else will do it, or you’ll get steamrolled by some out of control editor.

crote 4y ago

You can't, Wikipedia is pretty much entirely pedantry at this point. To give an example: a while back a semi-notable object in my local area burned down. It has a short Wikipedia page of a few hundred words, but it is not something anyone would actually care about. At 02:00AM (in the middle of the night) I added this to its Wikipedia page, citing a Tweet from the official fire department. Five minutes later the entire addition was removed, simply stating that "Twitter is not an acceptable source". Mind you, this is not an official policy: it is usually not allowed, but there are exceptions for instances like this. It was added back with less detail later on by a different user, who didn't even bother to cite any sources. So yeah, don't bother trying to contribute to Wikipedia, unless you are willing to fight for every single edit.

NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
If the Tweet that you cited was indeed from the official account of the local fire department, then the editor who reverted you was wrong. Twitter accounts are mostly unreliable sources, except when they are reliable: that is, when an official or verified account gives information about themselves. See WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SPS. The same goes for any such social media platform: YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, whatever. In fact, there are many TV news outlets who have official YouTube channels -- why wouldn't these be acceptable as reliable sources, just like a newspaper or a live TV broadcast?
- crote 4y ago
  Yeah, but are you willing to fight a "power user" over some trivial edit like this? I, for one, have better things to do with my time.
bombcar 4y ago
It is absolutely pointless to bother contributing to Wikipedia. Either it’s so notable someone else will do it, or you’ll get steamrolled by some out of control editor.