4 ms·

I'm not against them spending time. I'm against their attempt at controlling the use of language. They're not fixing a mistake, they're rewriting according to p

by xupybd 3y ago

I'm not against them spending time. I'm against their attempt at controlling the use of language. They're not fixing a mistake, they're rewriting according to personal preference. I see this as defacing other people's work. To me it would be like going into an open source project and changing the tab spacing just because it's not the one you use.

commoner 3y ago
> To me it would be like going into an open source project and changing the tab spacing just because it's not the one you use. This analogy doesn't work because one of Wikipedia's rules is that nobody owns any article, even if they wrote it themselves: > All Wikipedia pages and articles are edited collaboratively by a community of volunteer contributors. Individual contributors, also called editors, are known as Wikipedians. No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). > Once you have posted it to Wikipedia, you cannot stop anyone from editing text you have written. As each edit page clearly states: >> Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone > Similarly, by submitting your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) to Wikipedia, you allow others to challenge and develop them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content Open source software projects are different because each repo is usually controlled by at least one owner who can make decisions based solely on their own preferences. On Wikipedia, every disagreement is put to discussion and there is no article owner who can overrule everyone else.
- xupybd 3y ago
  No analogy holds 100%. It feels the same to me. Yes there are many differences. As with every analogy.
  - commoner 3y ago
    My point is that if you edit an article on Wikipedia, you can't reasonably expect the article to be as you left it. Every article is ever changing and nobody gets to stake a claim to anything they write.
    - xupybd 3y ago
      I don't disagree with that point.

by xupybd 3y ago

commoner 3y ago

> To me it would be like going into an open source project and changing the tab spacing just because it's not the one you use. This analogy doesn't work because one of Wikipedia's rules is that nobody owns any article, even if they wrote it themselves: > All Wikipedia pages and articles are edited collaboratively by a community of volunteer contributors. Individual contributors, also called editors, are known as Wikipedians. No one, no matter what, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article (or any part of it). > Once you have posted it to Wikipedia, you cannot stop anyone from editing text you have written. As each edit page clearly states: >> Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone > Similarly, by submitting your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) to Wikipedia, you allow others to challenge and develop them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content Open source software projects are different because each repo is usually controlled by at least one owner who can make decisions based solely on their own preferences. On Wikipedia, every disagreement is put to discussion and there is no article owner who can overrule everyone else.

xupybd 3y ago
No analogy holds 100%. It feels the same to me. Yes there are many differences. As with every analogy.
- commoner 3y ago
  My point is that if you edit an article on Wikipedia, you can't reasonably expect the article to be as you left it. Every article is ever changing and nobody gets to stake a claim to anything they write.
  - xupybd 3y ago
    I don't disagree with that point.