4 ms·

This hasn’t really been true for years. Most new editors have experienced like this: They see an article that needs correction or a small expansion so they cr

This hasn’t really been true for years. Most new editors have experienced like this: They see an article that needs correction or a small expansion so they create the account and do the work. Their work is immediately reverted by an editor. A few hours later the editor adds their work back, but under their own name.

rewmie 3y ago
> This hasn’t really been true for years. No, that's fundamentally wrong. Every single Wikipedia user is an editor. In Wikipedia ou don't even need to have registered an account or be logged in to be an editor. > Most new editors have experienced like this: > > They see an article that needs correction or a small expansion so they create the account and do the work. This is how I know you have no idea about what you're talking about. Most users don't bother registering an account because they do not need one to be able to edit articles. I am well aware of this fact because I've been active in Wikipedia's anti-vandalism groups, and one thing I did was spend time looking at the stream of most recent changes. New edits are mainly done by IP users, which means editors who either have no account or haven't bothered logging in, and red accounts (accounts whose owned didn't bothered to create a personal page). Red accounts were only behind a fraction of new edits. Again, no one needs to have an account to edit wikipedia, with the rare exception of articles temporarily locked due to being subjected t attacks and edit wars. > Their work is immediately reverted by an editor. In my experience this is a somewhat rare event, and it is mainly due to sheer vandalism (shit posting, users creating articles about themselves, inserting unfounded and unsourced claims, etc). There are also astroturfers who abuse wikipedia to advertise their products or services. There are also constructive contributions but they are either edited to fit the style guide or are marked for stuff like sources or demonstrate notoriety. I repeat, the main source of reverts is vandalism and posting stuff that has no place in Wikipedia, such as unsourced claims and allegations, post ads for stuff and businesses and things, push political agendas, and even abuse wikipedia as if it's your personal blog.
someone7x 3y ago
> They see an article that needs correction or a small expansion so they create the account and do the work. > Their work is immediately reverted by an editor. My 2 day wikipedia career in a nutshell, I guess I'm not alone.
justinclift 3y ago
Ouch, that sounds lousy. Any obvious examples you can point out?
- rewmie 3y ago
  > Ouch, that sounds lousy. That's the whole concept of a wiki: you edit an article like everyone else, you change everyone else's changes as you please, and it converges to a stable point by a consensus-based process. If you disagree with someone else's edit, you can open a debate to settle the dispute.
  - lp0_on_fire 3y ago
    > If you disagree with someone else's edit, you can open a debate to settle the dispute. That's supposed to the be process, yes, but the editors who've deemed themselves the chosen ones generally just skip right to the reverting.
    - rewmie 3y ago
      Reverting is editing. Just because you wrote something in Wikipedia that does not mean it is expected to be set in stone. If your expectation is to write stuff that only you can change, write a blog.
southwesterly 3y ago
This was my experience. So I stopped.
rewmie 3y ago
> Their work is immediately reverted by an editor. I'm not sure you got the point. The whole point is that in Wikipedia everyone is an editor. Even unregistered users are editors, which mean those who didn't even bothered to login. In Wikipedia everyone is an editor. I mean, that's the whole concept, isn't it? That's what it was designed to do: allow everyone to edit a doc. Everyone is an editor. Do you see what I mean?
- at_a_remove 3y ago
  I mean, that's true, but in a not-especially-deep way that doesn't really help or address the issue at hand. Why do we have this thing where different people can edit it? Oh, well, we're trying to build some inter-related foundation of knowledge via categories and references, text and images. So, while yes, anyone can edit, some of that gets in the way of the actual purpose, in that "five whys" sense. It's a bit like saying, when someone brings up spam, "Well, it's email! It's designed so anyone can send anyone else with an email address a message, that's the point."
  - rewmie 3y ago
    > I mean, that's true, but in a not-especially-deep way that doesn't really help or address the issue at hand. I'm not sure you go the point. If someone's complain is that others can also edit wikipedia articles, they are complaining about the fundamental nature and purpose of a wiki. Don't you understand how fundamentally flawed is the concept of conplaining that others just like you can also edit wikipedia? Those damned editors. > Why do we have this thing where different people can edit it? Yes, others can edit it, including your own changes. That is the whole concept of a wiki. Whining that others also edited a wiki shows a fundamental failure to understand what a wiki is and how it's designed and expected to work. > So, while yes, anyone can edit, some of that gets in the way of the actual purpose, in that "five whys" sense. No. Anyone can edit it as they see fit. The whole concept of a wiki is a consensus-based process that concurrent changes converge to a stable point accepted by the community. Expecting that your edit should be set in stone while you reserve your right to edit other people's work is simply absurd. That's why it's important to clarify what an editor really is (not a figure of authority, but a guy just like you) and why it's absurd to be offended and feel entitled to edit over everyone's work but not have your own contributions edited. That's not what a wiki is, nor is it why the concept is a huge success. > It's a bit like saying, when someone brings up spam (...) That's an amusing remark, because to me you're actually arguing in favor and in defense of spammers, as they are the ones complaining that their abusive misuse of a system should not be prevented, criticised or fought by the community.

rewmie 3y ago

> This hasn’t really been true for years. No, that's fundamentally wrong. Every single Wikipedia user is an editor. In Wikipedia ou don't even need to have registered an account or be logged in to be an editor. > Most new editors have experienced like this: > > They see an article that needs correction or a small expansion so they create the account and do the work. This is how I know you have no idea about what you're talking about. Most users don't bother registering an account because they do not need one to be able to edit articles. I am well aware of this fact because I've been active in Wikipedia's anti-vandalism groups, and one thing I did was spend time looking at the stream of most recent changes. New edits are mainly done by IP users, which means editors who either have no account or haven't bothered logging in, and red accounts (accounts whose owned didn't bothered to create a personal page). Red accounts were only behind a fraction of new edits. Again, no one needs to have an account to edit wikipedia, with the rare exception of articles temporarily locked due to being subjected t attacks and edit wars. > Their work is immediately reverted by an editor. In my experience this is a somewhat rare event, and it is mainly due to sheer vandalism (shit posting, users creating articles about themselves, inserting unfounded and unsourced claims, etc). There are also astroturfers who abuse wikipedia to advertise their products or services. There are also constructive contributions but they are either edited to fit the style guide or are marked for stuff like sources or demonstrate notoriety. I repeat, the main source of reverts is vandalism and posting stuff that has no place in Wikipedia, such as unsourced claims and allegations, post ads for stuff and businesses and things, push political agendas, and even abuse wikipedia as if it's your personal blog.

someone7x 3y ago

> They see an article that needs correction or a small expansion so they create the account and do the work. > Their work is immediately reverted by an editor. My 2 day wikipedia career in a nutshell, I guess I'm not alone.

justinclift 3y ago

Ouch, that sounds lousy. Any obvious examples you can point out?

rewmie 3y ago
> Ouch, that sounds lousy. That's the whole concept of a wiki: you edit an article like everyone else, you change everyone else's changes as you please, and it converges to a stable point by a consensus-based process. If you disagree with someone else's edit, you can open a debate to settle the dispute.
- lp0_on_fire 3y ago
  > If you disagree with someone else's edit, you can open a debate to settle the dispute. That's supposed to the be process, yes, but the editors who've deemed themselves the chosen ones generally just skip right to the reverting.
  - rewmie 3y ago
    Reverting is editing. Just because you wrote something in Wikipedia that does not mean it is expected to be set in stone. If your expectation is to write stuff that only you can change, write a blog.

southwesterly 3y ago

This was my experience. So I stopped.

rewmie 3y ago

> Their work is immediately reverted by an editor. I'm not sure you got the point. The whole point is that in Wikipedia everyone is an editor. Even unregistered users are editors, which mean those who didn't even bothered to login. In Wikipedia everyone is an editor. I mean, that's the whole concept, isn't it? That's what it was designed to do: allow everyone to edit a doc. Everyone is an editor. Do you see what I mean?

at_a_remove 3y ago
I mean, that's true, but in a not-especially-deep way that doesn't really help or address the issue at hand. Why do we have this thing where different people can edit it? Oh, well, we're trying to build some inter-related foundation of knowledge via categories and references, text and images. So, while yes, anyone can edit, some of that gets in the way of the actual purpose, in that "five whys" sense. It's a bit like saying, when someone brings up spam, "Well, it's email! It's designed so anyone can send anyone else with an email address a message, that's the point."
- rewmie 3y ago
  > I mean, that's true, but in a not-especially-deep way that doesn't really help or address the issue at hand. I'm not sure you go the point. If someone's complain is that others can also edit wikipedia articles, they are complaining about the fundamental nature and purpose of a wiki. Don't you understand how fundamentally flawed is the concept of conplaining that others just like you can also edit wikipedia? Those damned editors. > Why do we have this thing where different people can edit it? Yes, others can edit it, including your own changes. That is the whole concept of a wiki. Whining that others also edited a wiki shows a fundamental failure to understand what a wiki is and how it's designed and expected to work. > So, while yes, anyone can edit, some of that gets in the way of the actual purpose, in that "five whys" sense. No. Anyone can edit it as they see fit. The whole concept of a wiki is a consensus-based process that concurrent changes converge to a stable point accepted by the community. Expecting that your edit should be set in stone while you reserve your right to edit other people's work is simply absurd. That's why it's important to clarify what an editor really is (not a figure of authority, but a guy just like you) and why it's absurd to be offended and feel entitled to edit over everyone's work but not have your own contributions edited. That's not what a wiki is, nor is it why the concept is a huge success. > It's a bit like saying, when someone brings up spam (...) That's an amusing remark, because to me you're actually arguing in favor and in defense of spammers, as they are the ones complaining that their abusive misuse of a system should not be prevented, criticised or fought by the community.