5 ms·

> in fact, the wikipedia article on MVC is slightly off on the subject, assuming one accepts the original Xerox description as a source. People complaining abo

> in fact, the wikipedia article on MVC is slightly off on the subject, assuming one accepts the original Xerox description as a source. People complaining about factual inaccuracies on Wikipedia annoy me. It's Wikipedia. The entire point and purpose of it is to fix what you know is wrong. For once, I'd like to see, "I just touched up the Wikipedia article on this subject to explain it a bit more accurately."

Xurinos 14y ago
Naturally, I meant nothing personal to you. Would a bug report suffice? ;)
wahnfrieden 14y ago
This can be a really frustrating experience with articles where most people hold misconceptions about the concepts. I spent a few months off and on on the REST article and managed to clean it up a fair bit, but I was constantly working against militantly ignorant people. Last I checked it's somewhere between accurate and bullshit, one of the poorer resources for understanding either actual REST or more popular RPC style APIs.
mortenjorck 14y ago
>"I just touched up the Wikipedia article on this subject to explain it a bit more accurately." "But then all my changes were reverted by an overprotective editor; I brought the issues up on the talk page, but my comments were brusquely dismissed."
- saraid216 14y ago
  Your changes would still be in the edit log, and someone more savvy in Wikipedia politics would have the opportunity to get your changes cemented. Said person might be another HN reader who is less knowledgeable about the subject matter. If you don't make any changes, he has nothing to work with except some random whining. (And yes, that's how it works in the real world, too.)
  - jaylevitt 14y ago
    Are you volunteering to help push through wahnfrieden's REST changes, then?
    - saraid216 14y ago
      His comment does not imply they did not go through.
- mcherm 14y ago
  Yes, that probably IS what would happen. I still wish I read more comments that said they had done this.
- nl 14y ago
  Did that actually happen to you when you made that change or are you just assuming it would? (In my experience most Wikipedia edits are gratefully received, assuming you provide references for your claims. Kind of like HN, really)
batista 14y ago
>People complaining about factual inaccuracies on Wikipedia annoy me. It's Wikipedia. The entire point and purpose of it is to fix what you know is wrong. This presupposes 1) I care about fixing it. 2) I have the knowledge to fix it (spotting and removing an inaccuracy is easy, knowing the correct and full set of facts to substitute it with not so much) 3) I can write well enough 4) The Wikipedia process is not convoluted and broken for casual contributors.
Silhouette 14y ago
The article about MVC on Wikipedia wasn't just slightly off. For a long time, it was completely overrun by people who seemed to think MVC is an architecture for web apps. Real MVC, as the term had been used for decades before the web apps abused it and still is in interactive GUIs today, was all but relegated to a footnote. "Touching up the Wikipedia article" has little value in cases like this. Usually the only remedy at that point is to delete the entire thing and start again, which somebody finally did not long ago.

Xurinos 14y ago

Naturally, I meant nothing personal to you. Would a bug report suffice? ;)

wahnfrieden 14y ago

This can be a really frustrating experience with articles where most people hold misconceptions about the concepts. I spent a few months off and on on the REST article and managed to clean it up a fair bit, but I was constantly working against militantly ignorant people. Last I checked it's somewhere between accurate and bullshit, one of the poorer resources for understanding either actual REST or more popular RPC style APIs.

mortenjorck 14y ago

>"I just touched up the Wikipedia article on this subject to explain it a bit more accurately." "But then all my changes were reverted by an overprotective editor; I brought the issues up on the talk page, but my comments were brusquely dismissed."

saraid216 14y ago
Your changes would still be in the edit log, and someone more savvy in Wikipedia politics would have the opportunity to get your changes cemented. Said person might be another HN reader who is less knowledgeable about the subject matter. If you don't make any changes, he has nothing to work with except some random whining. (And yes, that's how it works in the real world, too.)
- jaylevitt 14y ago
  Are you volunteering to help push through wahnfrieden's REST changes, then?
  - saraid216 14y ago
    His comment does not imply they did not go through.
mcherm 14y ago
Yes, that probably IS what would happen. I still wish I read more comments that said they had done this.
nl 14y ago
Did that actually happen to you when you made that change or are you just assuming it would? (In my experience most Wikipedia edits are gratefully received, assuming you provide references for your claims. Kind of like HN, really)

batista 14y ago

>People complaining about factual inaccuracies on Wikipedia annoy me. It's Wikipedia. The entire point and purpose of it is to fix what you know is wrong. This presupposes 1) I care about fixing it. 2) I have the knowledge to fix it (spotting and removing an inaccuracy is easy, knowing the correct and full set of facts to substitute it with not so much) 3) I can write well enough 4) The Wikipedia process is not convoluted and broken for casual contributors.

Silhouette 14y ago

The article about MVC on Wikipedia wasn't just slightly off. For a long time, it was completely overrun by people who seemed to think MVC is an architecture for web apps. Real MVC, as the term had been used for decades before the web apps abused it and still is in interactive GUIs today, was all but relegated to a footnote. "Touching up the Wikipedia article" has little value in cases like this. Usually the only remedy at that point is to delete the entire thing and start again, which somebody finally did not long ago.