4 ms·

There are crazy politics involved in editing Wikipedia articles and it really does take a lot of skill to know how to edit, format, and properly cite an article

There are crazy politics involved in editing Wikipedia articles and it really does take a lot of skill to know how to edit, format, and properly cite an article so that your changes do not get reversed or article deleted. The editors have tons of internal politics and personal reasons for removing articles. You really need someone who knows how to navigate the waters to get things done. People imagine that anyone can add or create articles, and while that's true on the surface, if you aren't a part of the community, it isn't really true.

swang 14y ago
If you want to manipulate articles, you definitely need a lot of knowledge about Wikipedia "rules" which you can cite to constantly revert edits based on some reason: (NPOV, as in maintaining a neutral point of view, WP:RUMOR, WP:BIO). It's definitely much easier to wear people down if you're someone who is always on Wikipedia. In fact you can further wear them down by getting into a "Revert War" with the conflicting author. Since after 3 reverts you risk getting temporarily banned on Wikipedia for revert warring, after the 3 reverts you have to go to some random committee page on Wikipedia to settle the dispute.
- tptacek 14y ago
  I don't think this is true either. I don't think you need to know WP:RUMOR or WP:BIO (it helps to know what NPOV is, but you don't need to "know" it). The most important rule of editing Wikipedia is probably unspoken: start small and watch how the community reacts. Adding content and getting it reverted isn't a demerit; it's only painful if you are attached to the content. If you're going to start editing WP by getting involved with high-traffic pages, make your first edits small enough that you won't be upset when they're reverted.
  - swang 14y ago
    I meant if you want to "control" an article and force other editors to have to fight you to get something put on Wikipedia. You just throw at them a whole bunch of WP (Wikipedia Policies), cite WP:BIO for controversial facts about public figures, or use WP:RUMOR, WP:NOTRS or WP:OR. Most people have no idea about what these mean and just give up.
zalew 14y ago
sort of relevant: history of jesus' wiki entry http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/webhead/2011/01/jesus_of_wikipedia.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/webhead/2011/01/jes...
twelvechairs 14y ago
Yeah. IMO Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines need revisiting and simplification (Yes, this would be hard, but it does need doing). At present they are needlessly complex ('written by committee') and this obstructs non-frequent users from making contributions or feeling like they can justify their edits against someone who can quote more of these rules than they can.... Also, they do tend to play into the hands of misuse by PR companies and the like. Its very easy, for instance, for a PR company to find a few 'reliable' news sources to say something online, then add it to wikipedia (often removing opposing views) under the banner of 'Verifiability'. It doesn't even matter if it is completely untrue.... I'm sure there are ways at stopping this (like being stricter on 'reliability') if Wikimedia were interested in trying.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Which guidelines would you eliminate?
  - twelvechairs 14y ago
    I don't think its about 'eliminating' per se, but simplifying the structure of how it is all written, shortening and removing unnecessary cruft and duplication (which there is tonnes of). For instance the common-sense things that currently have multi-page long guidelines to describe them like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_create_hoaxes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_create_hoaxes and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipe.... It would be easy to remove these as separate guidelines and to just include the pertinent text of them (prob. doesnt need to be more than a couple of lines) is a more major policy/guideline. They could also do with creating a better front-end page for understanding/browsing the various policies and guidelines.
belorn 14y ago
All communities require skill of an user who wish to make a new contribution. Suggest an article to hacker news. If the title does not pass spell check, is inconsistent, or is of unreasonable length, it will be rejected by the community. An title out of "style" will not be as successful as one in style with the community. Suggest a patch to an open source project. If the code is not bug free, documented, and readable, it will be rejected. Report a software bug. Writing a bug report that will be taken serious is almost an art. Suggest a answer/question to stackexhange board. If the text is not readable, spam free, or on topic, it will be rejected. Each community has a unique set of requirements for new contributions. It often takes different skill sets to successful contribute in a meaningful way. Most if not all communities suggest new users to first read and observe before making new contribution. Many forums makes this specific point in FAQ's and user guides. Wikipedia's requirement on new article is harsh, but I would still put them as less harsh than adding a patch to a open source program or writing a bug report.
- acheron 14y ago
  Maybe communities like to think of themselves that way, and if it were really just based on "skill" that would be less of an issue. But in reality these things are more often based on who you know. In most open source projects, no matter how good my patch (or bug report) is, if I'm not friends with a maintainer it will be ignored or rejected. Same for Wikipedia. The quality and skill of the actual contribution is practically irrelevant, it's mainly about the pissing matches with other "editors": if you have time to babysit the page and undo reverts, and then navigate their hierarchy and appease the right people before you get banned. Most people won't bother: they will add some information they know, see it get reverted, and never try again.
  - im3w1l 14y ago
    This runs contrary to my experience. Could you back this up?
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
ilamont 14y ago
It's depressingly true. It's also why non-insiders are increasingly not bothering to edit/contribute to Wikipedia (http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2012/07/19/157056694/as-wikipedia-gets-pickier-editors-become-harder-to-find http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2012/07/19/157056...), and the organization now finds itself practically begging people to edit (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikipedia_to_add_a_love_button.php http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikipedia_to_add_a_love...).
- alttag 14y ago
  That's consisitent with my experience. I haven't made edits in years, after each time I tried I was faced with someone who effectively stalked the page and reverted anything contrary to their worldview as "NPOV". After similar experiences on a handful of diverse pages, I gave up.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    What pages did you edit?
tptacek 14y ago
I think that has more to do with perception (particularly among nerds) than reality. There's really only one subtle issue you need to understand to edit Wikipedia: cite non-blog sources. If you're writing new content, that one rule will pretty much get you left alone. If, on the other hand, you dive in and start editing the main Mac OS_X article, you only need one more rule of thumb: start small and go slow. A lot of Wikipedia-vs-nerd grief arises from people making their first or second "serious" edit, committing themselves to many carefully written paragraphs of text, and finding those grafs shredded by other editors. Cite sources. On heavily-trafficked articles, start small & go slow. This does not seem like a particularly egregious amount of internal politics to understand.
- neurotech1 14y ago
  Your right. I rarely edit Wikipedia pages, but have made small and appropriate edits to somewhat high traffic pages, and they where not reversed or immediately edited over.
nvmc 14y ago
For some reason Ulrich Drepper has an article on the German language Wikipedia, but it's strangely missing on the English language version. Other developers notable for similar reasons do have articles (Theo de Raadt comes to mind). In my admittedly limited experience, `rules' are often exploited to change (or expunge) articles with anything that remotely challenges the opinions of that select cabal of `veteran' editors.

swang 14y ago

If you want to manipulate articles, you definitely need a lot of knowledge about Wikipedia "rules" which you can cite to constantly revert edits based on some reason: (NPOV, as in maintaining a neutral point of view, WP:RUMOR, WP:BIO). It's definitely much easier to wear people down if you're someone who is always on Wikipedia. In fact you can further wear them down by getting into a "Revert War" with the conflicting author. Since after 3 reverts you risk getting temporarily banned on Wikipedia for revert warring, after the 3 reverts you have to go to some random committee page on Wikipedia to settle the dispute.

tptacek 14y ago
I don't think this is true either. I don't think you need to know WP:RUMOR or WP:BIO (it helps to know what NPOV is, but you don't need to "know" it). The most important rule of editing Wikipedia is probably unspoken: start small and watch how the community reacts. Adding content and getting it reverted isn't a demerit; it's only painful if you are attached to the content. If you're going to start editing WP by getting involved with high-traffic pages, make your first edits small enough that you won't be upset when they're reverted.
- swang 14y ago
  I meant if you want to "control" an article and force other editors to have to fight you to get something put on Wikipedia. You just throw at them a whole bunch of WP (Wikipedia Policies), cite WP:BIO for controversial facts about public figures, or use WP:RUMOR, WP:NOTRS or WP:OR. Most people have no idea about what these mean and just give up.

zalew 14y ago

sort of relevant: history of jesus' wiki entry http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/webhead/2011/01/jesus_of_wikipedia.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/webhead/2011/01/jes...

twelvechairs 14y ago

Yeah. IMO Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines need revisiting and simplification (Yes, this would be hard, but it does need doing). At present they are needlessly complex ('written by committee') and this obstructs non-frequent users from making contributions or feeling like they can justify their edits against someone who can quote more of these rules than they can.... Also, they do tend to play into the hands of misuse by PR companies and the like. Its very easy, for instance, for a PR company to find a few 'reliable' news sources to say something online, then add it to wikipedia (often removing opposing views) under the banner of 'Verifiability'. It doesn't even matter if it is completely untrue.... I'm sure there are ways at stopping this (like being stricter on 'reliability') if Wikimedia were interested in trying.

tptacek 14y ago
Which guidelines would you eliminate?
- twelvechairs 14y ago
  I don't think its about 'eliminating' per se, but simplifying the structure of how it is all written, shortening and removing unnecessary cruft and duplication (which there is tonnes of). For instance the common-sense things that currently have multi-page long guidelines to describe them like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_create_hoaxes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_create_hoaxes and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipe.... It would be easy to remove these as separate guidelines and to just include the pertinent text of them (prob. doesnt need to be more than a couple of lines) is a more major policy/guideline. They could also do with creating a better front-end page for understanding/browsing the various policies and guidelines.

belorn 14y ago

All communities require skill of an user who wish to make a new contribution. Suggest an article to hacker news. If the title does not pass spell check, is inconsistent, or is of unreasonable length, it will be rejected by the community. An title out of "style" will not be as successful as one in style with the community. Suggest a patch to an open source project. If the code is not bug free, documented, and readable, it will be rejected. Report a software bug. Writing a bug report that will be taken serious is almost an art. Suggest a answer/question to stackexhange board. If the text is not readable, spam free, or on topic, it will be rejected. Each community has a unique set of requirements for new contributions. It often takes different skill sets to successful contribute in a meaningful way. Most if not all communities suggest new users to first read and observe before making new contribution. Many forums makes this specific point in FAQ's and user guides. Wikipedia's requirement on new article is harsh, but I would still put them as less harsh than adding a patch to a open source program or writing a bug report.

acheron 14y ago
Maybe communities like to think of themselves that way, and if it were really just based on "skill" that would be less of an issue. But in reality these things are more often based on who you know. In most open source projects, no matter how good my patch (or bug report) is, if I'm not friends with a maintainer it will be ignored or rejected. Same for Wikipedia. The quality and skill of the actual contribution is practically irrelevant, it's mainly about the pissing matches with other "editors": if you have time to babysit the page and undo reverts, and then navigate their hierarchy and appease the right people before you get banned. Most people won't bother: they will add some information they know, see it get reverted, and never try again.
- im3w1l 14y ago
  This runs contrary to my experience. Could you back this up?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]

ilamont 14y ago

It's depressingly true. It's also why non-insiders are increasingly not bothering to edit/contribute to Wikipedia (http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2012/07/19/157056694/as-wikipedia-gets-pickier-editors-become-harder-to-find http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2012/07/19/157056...), and the organization now finds itself practically begging people to edit (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikipedia_to_add_a_love_button.php http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikipedia_to_add_a_love...).

alttag 14y ago
That's consisitent with my experience. I haven't made edits in years, after each time I tried I was faced with someone who effectively stalked the page and reverted anything contrary to their worldview as "NPOV". After similar experiences on a handful of diverse pages, I gave up.
- tptacek 14y ago
  What pages did you edit?

tptacek 14y ago

I think that has more to do with perception (particularly among nerds) than reality. There's really only one subtle issue you need to understand to edit Wikipedia: cite non-blog sources. If you're writing new content, that one rule will pretty much get you left alone. If, on the other hand, you dive in and start editing the main Mac OS_X article, you only need one more rule of thumb: start small and go slow. A lot of Wikipedia-vs-nerd grief arises from people making their first or second "serious" edit, committing themselves to many carefully written paragraphs of text, and finding those grafs shredded by other editors. Cite sources. On heavily-trafficked articles, start small & go slow. This does not seem like a particularly egregious amount of internal politics to understand.

neurotech1 14y ago
Your right. I rarely edit Wikipedia pages, but have made small and appropriate edits to somewhat high traffic pages, and they where not reversed or immediately edited over.

nvmc 14y ago

For some reason Ulrich Drepper has an article on the German language Wikipedia, but it's strangely missing on the English language version. Other developers notable for similar reasons do have articles (Theo de Raadt comes to mind). In my admittedly limited experience, `rules' are often exploited to change (or expunge) articles with anything that remotely challenges the opinions of that select cabal of `veteran' editors.