5 ms·
That opening for the Wikipedia article looks problematic - it's grammatically nonsense and has random numbers in it - someone should probably open a talk discus
by vikramkr 3y ago
That opening for the Wikipedia article looks problematic - it's grammatically nonsense and has random numbers in it - someone should probably open a talk discussion on what happened
Edit: yeah that looks like a recent edit. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be pretty good about flagging this sort of stuff? Does anyone know how to raise the problem to those super editors that run the site? I assume they won't appreciate a random person undoing an edit
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reason&diff=prev&oldid=1179925542 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reason&diff=prev&...
- ben_w 3y agoIf I was on desktop right now, I'd put the new bit after the existing citation and add a new {{citation needed}} for the addition. Don't worry too much about diving in, so long as you comment your changes appropriately when committing, that's the point of the place and how it does the quality control in the first place :)
- vikramkr 3y agoLeaving a citation needed doesn't sound like the right thing to do for the definition of something as big as reason - esp with the grammatical confusion idk what you'd even edit it to to make sense. Like what is a three evidence or a reliability and what do those reliability numbers mean. And the sentence describing those numbers doesn't make sense - is it 10 or 3 or which of those percentages? Idk maybe it should just be undone
- ben_w 3y agoThen be bold with the edits and delete it, just say why in the comment box. The deletion itself is as easy to undo as to perform, and if you say why you're doing it, someone bringing that part back can do a better job next time. :)