4 ms·

What kind of edits did you make? I fix grammar and spelling stuff semi-regularly, along with sometimes more substantial edits, and haven't had that experience.

What kind of edits did you make? I fix grammar and spelling stuff semi-regularly, along with sometimes more substantial edits, and haven't had that experience. Fairly often when I fix a typo, the author whose typo I'm fixing even clicks the "thank" button next to the edit. I recently had a minor hobby of tracking down a/an mixups, like "an member", and I got no flak for that.

Jtsummers 12y ago
Not GP poster, but years ago (so not recent, at all) I tried editing both for grammar and content. In a variety of article types (movies and books, technical content like math and CS topics) nearly everything got reverted. For instance, if I corrected a plot point listed in the plot summary for a movie it'd be removed. As an example, imagine an obviously wrong statement in the summary of Batman saying that his alter ego is Clark Kent (trying to remember the actual articles, this wasn't one, but they were just as bad). This is clearly wrong and easily verifiable, but someone would revert the edits and dispute it in the talk pages. If an algorithm were incorrectly described on a CS page I would try to correct it, leaving comments in the discussion about why I was making changes. They were almost all reverted to incorrect pseudo-code or python implementations. Again, these were easily verifiable (in some cases by literally copy/pasting the python code and trying to run it). It was just an exercise in frustration so I gave up. Maybe things are better these days, I haven't bothered since 2010 or 2011.
jedberg 12y ago
Mostly grammar edits as I would see them while reading. This was many years ago (before the thank button I think) so maybe things are better now. I gave up trying to edit Wikipedia and instead I contribute by giving them money every year.
kevin_thibedeau 12y ago
Spelling, minor grammar errors, and graffiti is all I'll fix nowadays. I won't bother rewriting awkward sentences or the commonly encountered repetition of the same facts in different paragraphs. I sure as hell won't add new content. That consumes too much of my time for something that will likely be reverted by a pedant who can't stand for their precious to be touched by someone else.
- a3_nm 12y ago
  The problem with that approach is that if everyone does this, Wikipedia will be dominated by pedants who discourage everyone else from contributing. Wikipedia is a unique resource, it is everyone's resource, we can't afford to lose it like this. Of course, given the scale of the project, some time has to be sunk in the unpleasant task of dealing with users who don't understand how the project works. It will be problematic if no one has the courage to do this any longer...

Jtsummers 12y ago

Not GP poster, but years ago (so not recent, at all) I tried editing both for grammar and content. In a variety of article types (movies and books, technical content like math and CS topics) nearly everything got reverted. For instance, if I corrected a plot point listed in the plot summary for a movie it'd be removed. As an example, imagine an obviously wrong statement in the summary of Batman saying that his alter ego is Clark Kent (trying to remember the actual articles, this wasn't one, but they were just as bad). This is clearly wrong and easily verifiable, but someone would revert the edits and dispute it in the talk pages. If an algorithm were incorrectly described on a CS page I would try to correct it, leaving comments in the discussion about why I was making changes. They were almost all reverted to incorrect pseudo-code or python implementations. Again, these were easily verifiable (in some cases by literally copy/pasting the python code and trying to run it). It was just an exercise in frustration so I gave up. Maybe things are better these days, I haven't bothered since 2010 or 2011.

jedberg 12y ago

Mostly grammar edits as I would see them while reading. This was many years ago (before the thank button I think) so maybe things are better now. I gave up trying to edit Wikipedia and instead I contribute by giving them money every year.

kevin_thibedeau 12y ago

Spelling, minor grammar errors, and graffiti is all I'll fix nowadays. I won't bother rewriting awkward sentences or the commonly encountered repetition of the same facts in different paragraphs. I sure as hell won't add new content. That consumes too much of my time for something that will likely be reverted by a pedant who can't stand for their precious to be touched by someone else.

a3_nm 12y ago
The problem with that approach is that if everyone does this, Wikipedia will be dominated by pedants who discourage everyone else from contributing. Wikipedia is a unique resource, it is everyone's resource, we can't afford to lose it like this. Of course, given the scale of the project, some time has to be sunk in the unpleasant task of dealing with users who don't understand how the project works. It will be problematic if no one has the courage to do this any longer...