6 ms·

Wikipedia has so many rules and restrictions around editing an article that the only people who can invest enough time to learn them are people whose time is ot

Wikipedia has so many rules and restrictions around editing an article that the only people who can invest enough time to learn them are people whose time is otherwise worthless. I once saw a great example when a notable athlete was traded from one team to another... I think it was a famous basketball player, but can't remember who. On a whim I checked the article history page and saw the same pattern: a new user to Wikipedia would make the edit, and it was quickly reverted by one established editor. When I looked at the talk page, the WP editor made it clear that it was Official Wikipedia Policy that even though both clubs had announced the trade, and news was being carried on multiple outlets, the trade wasn't official enough until the NBA released a daily transfer list with his name on it. All five new editors were threatened with WP:3RR and WP:yaddayadda instead of encouraged. But hey, when the list was officially released twenty-five minutes later the editor who got the page locked got to make the edit. Great job guys! Way to add value to the project! This same behavior happens on every site where authority is meted out based on activity, not ability. I once tried to correct an elisp entry on a Stack Overflow answer: my edit was autorejected because it had less than five characters difference. So I added a fairly pointless comment to get past the automatic rejection, only to have someone reject it because the comment wasn't sufficiently useful (go figure). I was finally able to get someone to make a correction by going into the Stack Overflow chat and trying to explain things... except the user, who freely admitted to never using emacs before, messed up and made things worse. Whatever. My give-a-fucks were all out. It's probably still wrong!

flexie 12y ago
I experienced the same thing. Nothing is as demotivating as seeing an edit you spent hours researching and writing deleted for some obscure reason and then rewritten a few days later by the very same guys who deleted your entry.
- spiritplumber 12y ago
  Citizendum experienced this early on, which is why it's a ghost town now.
serve_yay 12y ago
Yes, I remember reading that they prefer info that can be referenced, even when the reference itself doesn't have references. I suppose I understand why, but it leads to situations like what you describe. Overall it seems to be pretty fiercely territorial, so no surprise why they have trouble attracting new contributors.
diminoten 12y ago
I had something similar happen, where I offered details on a fix, and provided a link to more details. Someone removed part of my fix text, then someone else removed my link (it wasn't relevant without the fix text), and then a third person removed the comment entirely because it didn't offer a fix (without the link and the text, it was basically worthless). So stackoverflow went from "having a useful answer" to "having no answer at all" because folks abused their use-granted power. I am personally fond of the "king for a day" form of crowd-sourced moderation, where folks who are granted moderation say don't get to keep it long enough to get used to it, and learn how to abuse it.
- syntern 12y ago
  Why do you think that the "king for a day" won't be abused either?
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    Folks who are granted moderation say don't get to keep it long enough to get used to it, and learn how to abuse it.
    - commandar 12y ago
      I've said this before, but it's always funny to me how many proposed fixes end up sounding a lot like /.'s metamoderation system. Slashdot was far from perfect, but I still think the system of temporary moderators followed up by temporary metamoderators is pretty elegant compared to most of the alternatives I've seen.
      - sameerds 12y ago
        Slashdot was ... ???
ww520 12y ago
When people get petty power, they will use it for pettiness.
- a_gentle_autist 12y ago
  Hacker news commenter with a lot of karma...
smackfu 12y ago
The counter argument would be that 100 people are going to go to wikipedia and try to update the team for a popular player. But who's going to do it for the last man off the bench? A system that makes sure all updates are made properly, if a little less timely (and we are probably talking one day later), is not a bad thing.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  This works for the NBA articles. But there are other more obscure subjects that if you stifle the edits when they happen, they may not be attempted again for a long time. Or never.
- 1ris 12y ago
  I don't see how making sure are made properly should forbid that 100 people are going to go to wikipedia and try to update the team for a popular player. The Problem with Wikipedia is that Wikipedia does not want to reflect truth, or reality or facts or objectivity however one might call it, but verifiability. That is why they revert to false statements, even if they know so.
  - Golf_Hotel_Mike 12y ago
    Is that such a bad thing really? Wikipedia already has a terrible reputation in research and academics, most people simply refuse to accept any information off it because "anyone can edit it." Insisting on verifiability is a necessary evil if Wikipedia wants to have even a modicum of credibility. Maybe the standards are far too stringent, but verifiability is tangible, and the 'truth' isn't.
    - 1ris 12y ago
      Wikipedia will never, ever be accepted by the academic community, no matter what kind of rules are implemented, als long as it stays a wiki. And once one accepts that one can drop this stupid principle. For me it seems the only reason it exists is to pander the academic community. But it's a hopeless and one sided love. It does not improve quality, it does not improve credibility, the best thing about it that is produces funny feedback loops.
NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
I have privs on the Scifi SE... I've never rejected edits for lack of comments or minor corrections. Anything that resembles good faith effort and isn't flagrantly wrong gets ok'd (though others have complained about me doing that... I'm supposed to at least verify it or something).
tsotha 12y ago
With all the rules I'm amazed at the amount of stuff that's simply wrong. And it's pointless to try to fix anything, because your edits will be rejected on technicalities (like the NBA trade you mentioned) or at some later point in time the section will be rewritten with incorrect information added back by people referencing the same erroneous sources.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
a_gentle_autist 12y ago
You know the same thing happens here, right? Not everyone can down vote, flag, etc. Irony isn't lost on me.
yuhong 12y ago
There is an emacs stackexchange in beta now: http://emacs.stackexchange.com/ http://emacs.stackexchange.com/

flexie 12y ago

I experienced the same thing. Nothing is as demotivating as seeing an edit you spent hours researching and writing deleted for some obscure reason and then rewritten a few days later by the very same guys who deleted your entry.

spiritplumber 12y ago
Citizendum experienced this early on, which is why it's a ghost town now.

serve_yay 12y ago

Yes, I remember reading that they prefer info that can be referenced, even when the reference itself doesn't have references. I suppose I understand why, but it leads to situations like what you describe. Overall it seems to be pretty fiercely territorial, so no surprise why they have trouble attracting new contributors.

diminoten 12y ago

I had something similar happen, where I offered details on a fix, and provided a link to more details. Someone removed part of my fix text, then someone else removed my link (it wasn't relevant without the fix text), and then a third person removed the comment entirely because it didn't offer a fix (without the link and the text, it was basically worthless). So stackoverflow went from "having a useful answer" to "having no answer at all" because folks abused their use-granted power. I am personally fond of the "king for a day" form of crowd-sourced moderation, where folks who are granted moderation say don't get to keep it long enough to get used to it, and learn how to abuse it.

syntern 12y ago
Why do you think that the "king for a day" won't be abused either?
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  Folks who are granted moderation say don't get to keep it long enough to get used to it, and learn how to abuse it.
  - commandar 12y ago
    I've said this before, but it's always funny to me how many proposed fixes end up sounding a lot like /.'s metamoderation system. Slashdot was far from perfect, but I still think the system of temporary moderators followed up by temporary metamoderators is pretty elegant compared to most of the alternatives I've seen.
    - sameerds 12y ago
      Slashdot was ... ???

ww520 12y ago

When people get petty power, they will use it for pettiness.

a_gentle_autist 12y ago
Hacker news commenter with a lot of karma...

smackfu 12y ago

The counter argument would be that 100 people are going to go to wikipedia and try to update the team for a popular player. But who's going to do it for the last man off the bench? A system that makes sure all updates are made properly, if a little less timely (and we are probably talking one day later), is not a bad thing.

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
This works for the NBA articles. But there are other more obscure subjects that if you stifle the edits when they happen, they may not be attempted again for a long time. Or never.
1ris 12y ago
I don't see how making sure are made properly should forbid that 100 people are going to go to wikipedia and try to update the team for a popular player. The Problem with Wikipedia is that Wikipedia does not want to reflect truth, or reality or facts or objectivity however one might call it, but verifiability. That is why they revert to false statements, even if they know so.
- Golf_Hotel_Mike 12y ago
  Is that such a bad thing really? Wikipedia already has a terrible reputation in research and academics, most people simply refuse to accept any information off it because "anyone can edit it." Insisting on verifiability is a necessary evil if Wikipedia wants to have even a modicum of credibility. Maybe the standards are far too stringent, but verifiability is tangible, and the 'truth' isn't.
  - 1ris 12y ago
    Wikipedia will never, ever be accepted by the academic community, no matter what kind of rules are implemented, als long as it stays a wiki. And once one accepts that one can drop this stupid principle. For me it seems the only reason it exists is to pander the academic community. But it's a hopeless and one sided love. It does not improve quality, it does not improve credibility, the best thing about it that is produces funny feedback loops.

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago

I have privs on the Scifi SE... I've never rejected edits for lack of comments or minor corrections. Anything that resembles good faith effort and isn't flagrantly wrong gets ok'd (though others have complained about me doing that... I'm supposed to at least verify it or something).

tsotha 12y ago

With all the rules I'm amazed at the amount of stuff that's simply wrong. And it's pointless to try to fix anything, because your edits will be rejected on technicalities (like the NBA trade you mentioned) or at some later point in time the section will be rewritten with incorrect information added back by people referencing the same erroneous sources.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

a_gentle_autist 12y ago

You know the same thing happens here, right? Not everyone can down vote, flag, etc. Irony isn't lost on me.

yuhong 12y ago

There is an emacs stackexchange in beta now: http://emacs.stackexchange.com/ http://emacs.stackexchange.com/