5 ms·
"It's amazing that anybody creates Wikpedia articles at all" Yeh. This is why I stopped editing wikipedia very often. They are maniacal about deleting things t
by Morromist 3mo ago
"It's amazing that anybody creates Wikpedia articles at all"
Yeh. This is why I stopped editing wikipedia very often. They are maniacal about deleting things that I consider noteworthy but others don't. I still love wikipedia and think its the best website on the internet, but this is probably its biggest flaw.
- NordStreamYacht 3mo agoThey even roll back corrections to grammar. Power tripping overrides common sense.
- shevy-java 3mo agoThis could be automatic. I noticed this myself because I corrected both typos in english and german wikipedia; sometimes they are reverted, sometimes not. There seems no logic in it, so I assumed that in some cases this must have been automatic wiki bots reverting something.
- NordStreamYacht 3mo agoThis was like 10 years ago. Long before the real invasion of the bots. I don't even remember the username or password of my account any more.
- Nnnes 3mo agoThe main anti-vandalism bot ClueBot was created in 2007, and its successor ClueBot NG in 2010. They certainly have false positives from time to time, but that doesn't mean they aren't the most useful bots on the website.
- Gander5739 3mo agoIt aims to have a false positive rate of 0.1%
- andrepd 3mo agoAnti-vandalism bots have been used for much longer than 10 years lol
- NordStreamYacht 3mo agoDon't know, don't care. Wikipedia is not a major source of information for me any more, the summaries from various search engines are enough. For everything else there's grok.
- NordStreamYacht 3mo agoI would expect a bot to be consistent. Wikipedia editors? Not so much.
- zerobees 3mo ago> "It's amazing that anybody creates Wikpedia articles at all" Very few people do, which actually makes it worse: of course the spammers and the hustlers are still motivated, so the needle moves more firmly into the territory of "most newcomer contributions are made in bad faith". Editors and admins feel increasingly under siege, so they respond more aggressively to everything. It's basically the same problem as with real-world policing: because the cops overwhelmingly have deal with "problem" cases (you call them about burglars or drug dealers, not to tell them you baked some cookies), they develop a skewed perception of the average citizen and... well.
- twister2920 3mo agoCops actually spend the vast majority of their time policing traffic violations and responding to non-emergency calls. Not in GTA-style shootouts.
- pessimizer 3mo agoTraffic violations and non-emergencies that you would call the police over are problems. That's why we involve the police. Video games are irrelevant.
- questiona 3mo ago[flagged]
- halperter 3mo agoDid you create an account _just_ so you could comment? lol. Anyways, footnotes seem to work or are in-text. Links work as well so IDK the problem? Then you talk about the claim of notability? Wikipedia's terms for notability are different than just a lot of people using the product. It's not the best, and should be reworked, but you're confusing wiki policies for general terms. Then, we summarize that the article, author, and wikipedia are trash. Definitely one of the non-sequiturs of all time, lol. You don't even have an issue that the article is deleted, showing that you have no knowledge or at the very least don't care about adding substance to the discussion. To summarize: Please articulate your thoughts in a understandable, neutral manner that adds to the discourse.
- killpedoslikeu 3mo ago[flagged]
- halperter 3mo ago>account created: 15 mins ago Comments on: One singular post >Calls people pedophiles(?), calls for homicide(?) 0/8 bait, best regards.
- Paracompact 3mo agoWretch, huh. I don't think we want you here.
- killpedoslikeu 3mo ago[flagged]
- halperter 3mo ago
- lambdaone 3mo ago"They are maniacal about deleting things that I consider noteworthy but others don't" is exactly the point of the notability policy in the first place. Otherwise Wikipedia would almost instantly fill up with crap.
- fragmede 3mo agoBecause, in 2026, hard drives are really small and can't hold much information, that we need to limit the world's freely and globally available editable encyclopedia, too what a select group of individuals consider noteworthy. No possible editorial bias there! Hard drives can hold lots of data these days, and text compresses rather well.
- lambdaone 3mo agoYou can write about whatever you like and put it on the web, just not in Wikipedia for which, as has been said exhaustively above, there are clearly laid out admissions criteria, not just the whims of a "select group". You are entirely free to contribute to articles-for-deletion process yourself. Wikipedia does not exist to be a soapbox, self-publishing host or advertising medium, and having a Wikipedia article is not a human right.
- ninjascotsman 3mo agoIt is filled with crap for example London Bus routes
- lambdaone 3mo agoEven the bus route articles seem to have drawn sufficient reliable-sources attention to merit them being kept. The policy is clear and definitive.
- Morromist 3mo agoI see what you mean, but I've written a fair number of wikipedia articles at the behest of professors who are experts in their fields and were annoyed that X person wasn't mentioned. The articles were eventually deleted. The professors should probably be the ones who decide what is notable in my view. That a small group of wikipedia editors did not appreciate the significance of the persons isn't surpising, they can't be experts about everything.