3 ms·

I don't understand. Surely the exposure of being on here will result in the article being improved. In fact, I don't understand why there is any opposition at

by rms 18y ago

I don't understand. Surely the exposure of being on here will result in the article being improved. In fact, I don't understand why there is any opposition at all. I am positively baffled.

ellyagg 18y ago
Folks around here are always on alert for abuses of all stripes, real and imagined. It's part of the charm.
tptacek 18y ago
First, WP has a thing about coordinated editing strikes on articles, especially when there's a WP:NOT question, especially when the subject of the article is coordinating the edit. It's true that WP people are always on the lookout for any perceived slight, but they're consistent about this one. Second, stoking a minor controversy by creating a WP article about HN that immediately gets flagged NN --- an article with virtually no content, on WP, an article itself inferior to almost any navel-gazing HN debate thread about HN --- and then requesting that HN come in and fix it... that's also an abuse. And hey, it's just my opinion. I didn't flag the article.
- rms 18y ago
  But it's a new article. How should it be improved if not encouraging people to edit it? Isn't that the whole idea behind Wikipedia? There is no need for this process to be contentious. All it needed to be unflagged not notable was some references. I went and Googled up 5 articles; it was painless enough. Where is the abuse? The article had no content because it was just made; it started with the opinions of one person. That's why it was requested for people to improve it. That's what Wikipedia does, it writes and improves encyclopedia articles by crowdsourcing. Saying it's an abuse because the article is bad is ridiculous. That's the whole point -- to fix the article. And no, it is not abuse. It's an intended use of the system. You are saying it is an abuse because it is controversial? That seems inconsistent, this site thrives on debate and in this case such debate can only improve the quality of the article. I still don't get it. I went and reedited the article, I would encourage you to give it another pass.
  - tptacek 18y ago
    I don't think any less of you for disagreeing with me. And I don't think we should be using HN to organizing WP editing drives.

by rms 18y ago

I don't understand. Surely the exposure of being on here will result in the article being improved. In fact, I don't understand why there is any opposition at all. I am positively baffled.

ellyagg 18y ago

Folks around here are always on alert for abuses of all stripes, real and imagined. It's part of the charm.

tptacek 18y ago

First, WP has a thing about coordinated editing strikes on articles, especially when there's a WP:NOT question, especially when the subject of the article is coordinating the edit. It's true that WP people are always on the lookout for any perceived slight, but they're consistent about this one. Second, stoking a minor controversy by creating a WP article about HN that immediately gets flagged NN --- an article with virtually no content, on WP, an article itself inferior to almost any navel-gazing HN debate thread about HN --- and then requesting that HN come in and fix it... that's also an abuse. And hey, it's just my opinion. I didn't flag the article.

rms 18y ago
But it's a new article. How should it be improved if not encouraging people to edit it? Isn't that the whole idea behind Wikipedia? There is no need for this process to be contentious. All it needed to be unflagged not notable was some references. I went and Googled up 5 articles; it was painless enough. Where is the abuse? The article had no content because it was just made; it started with the opinions of one person. That's why it was requested for people to improve it. That's what Wikipedia does, it writes and improves encyclopedia articles by crowdsourcing. Saying it's an abuse because the article is bad is ridiculous. That's the whole point -- to fix the article. And no, it is not abuse. It's an intended use of the system. You are saying it is an abuse because it is controversial? That seems inconsistent, this site thrives on debate and in this case such debate can only improve the quality of the article. I still don't get it. I went and reedited the article, I would encourage you to give it another pass.
- tptacek 18y ago
  I don't think any less of you for disagreeing with me. And I don't think we should be using HN to organizing WP editing drives.