3 ms·

> 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 unregiste

• 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.
    • at_a_remove 3y ago
      I'm not so sure you get the point. The point of a wiki is not that anyone can edit it. That's merely a property, a method to accomplish something. The wiki is for something. That something is to build an interrelated foundation of references and facts. That anyone can edit is merely a means to get there. The misuse of editing at least-worst, impedes creating that hyperlinked mass of information. And no, you have the spammer thing backward, entirely. That anyone can send something to someone else is a merely a property of email. The point of email is communication that people want. And so the misuse of "sending a message to anybody" is that it can get in the way of communication people do want. Nobody said any of it should be "set in stone," good grief. We're a month past November 5th, let's put the strawman away. Engage with some of the examples provided by people of bad actors for some good faith discussion.