3 ms·

is this hyperbole or actually true?

by hackernewds 3y ago

CameronNemo 3y ago
IME that is not gonna happen in a scenario like the described, assuming the claim is sourced.
mminer237 3y ago
In my experience, it really depends on the page. Some pages will go years with no editors reviewing them, and some articles you will get reverted that same day for literally any change you make. Something like this is probably obscure enough that any change you make should be able to go under the radar.
PhasmaFelis 3y ago
Hyperbole. There are certainly jerks on Wikipedia, and it's really frustrating if you run into one, but the vast majority of good faith edits will never encounter this problem. It's like when someone gets banned from a Reddit sub for a stupid reason and concludes that every one of Reddit's thousands and thousands of mods is an evil power-tripping egotist.
Der_Einzige 3y ago
Def true. I've tried on several occasions to fix small issues in the Max Stirner wikipedia page and had them reverted within minutes.
- InSteady 3y ago
  Color me not shocked that some philosophy major has carved out a fiefdom on wikipedia and jealously guards it against all would-be contributors.
seabass-labrax 3y ago
I have made a modest number of contributions to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I would say the worst experience was going through a somewhat bureaucratic process to have a page updated to then be ghosted by the person who suggested the process. Eventually I just did a WP:BOLD and made the edits myself, which remain there to this day. The best experience is being 'thanked' (there is a button for it on a page's edit history) by a page's self-appointed 'owner'. From my perspective, if the edits are uncontroversial, it appears as though the response will be too. Editing Wikipedia is, socially, neither an overwhelmingly positive nor an overwhelmingly negative experience for me. I do it now and then as a purely altruistic endeavour.

3 ms·

is this hyperbole or actually true?

by hackernewds 3y ago

is this hyperbole or actually true?

CameronNemo 3y ago
IME that is not gonna happen in a scenario like the described, assuming the claim is sourced.
mminer237 3y ago
In my experience, it really depends on the page. Some pages will go years with no editors reviewing them, and some articles you will get reverted that same day for literally any change you make. Something like this is probably obscure enough that any change you make should be able to go under the radar.
PhasmaFelis 3y ago
Hyperbole. There are certainly jerks on Wikipedia, and it's really frustrating if you run into one, but the vast majority of good faith edits will never encounter this problem. It's like when someone gets banned from a Reddit sub for a stupid reason and concludes that every one of Reddit's thousands and thousands of mods is an evil power-tripping egotist.
Der_Einzige 3y ago
Def true. I've tried on several occasions to fix small issues in the Max Stirner wikipedia page and had them reverted within minutes.
- InSteady 3y ago
  Color me not shocked that some philosophy major has carved out a fiefdom on wikipedia and jealously guards it against all would-be contributors.
seabass-labrax 3y ago
I have made a modest number of contributions to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I would say the worst experience was going through a somewhat bureaucratic process to have a page updated to then be ghosted by the person who suggested the process. Eventually I just did a WP:BOLD and made the edits myself, which remain there to this day. The best experience is being 'thanked' (there is a button for it on a page's edit history) by a page's self-appointed 'owner'. From my perspective, if the edits are uncontroversial, it appears as though the response will be too. Editing Wikipedia is, socially, neither an overwhelmingly positive nor an overwhelmingly negative experience for me. I do it now and then as a purely altruistic endeavour.