4 ms·

Wikipedia gets a worse rap than it really deserves. If you ignore most of the pedantic self-important editors/trolls on WP, it's actually a great experience to

Wikipedia gets a worse rap than it really deserves. If you ignore most of the pedantic self-important editors/trolls on WP, it's actually a great experience to contribute. I write a lot of articles on Canadian/British law and history, and the WPProjects are very supportive and generally polite. Otherwise, I don't really need to interact with anybody. I simply enjoy contributing to the organization of human knowledge. Nearly a decade and thousands of edits (on various accounts for reasons of anonymity) later, I have yet to have a real negative experience that has affected me in one way or another.

ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
Quite possibly because the topics you contribute to are very non controversial.
- unavoidable 11y ago
  But Wikipedia as an encyclopedic repository is never going to be a good venue for controversial topics. That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. It's a terrible forum for a debate, and that's the way it will always be. This isn't something wrong with Wikipedia in particular, other than the fact that it is one of the largest and most visited sites on the Internet.
  - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
    An encyclopedia with any remote claim to being thorough will inevitably have to cover some controversial topics though.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      A normal encyclopedia is curated by a relatively small amount of people who are able to reach a consensus on a controversial topic, as opposed to random strangers on the Internet with an opinion being able to edit things.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Topics don't need to be traditionally controversial for them to be really tricky to edit. I understand why Malvinas / Falklands is going to be tricky. I don't expect to have to go to arbcom because I disagree with someone about - versus – versus —. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=429209333#Injunction_on_article_title_disputes_secondary_to_hyphen.2Fendash_issue http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitrat...

ZanyProgrammer 11y ago

Quite possibly because the topics you contribute to are very non controversial.

unavoidable 11y ago
But Wikipedia as an encyclopedic repository is never going to be a good venue for controversial topics. That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. It's a terrible forum for a debate, and that's the way it will always be. This isn't something wrong with Wikipedia in particular, other than the fact that it is one of the largest and most visited sites on the Internet.
- ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
  An encyclopedia with any remote claim to being thorough will inevitably have to cover some controversial topics though.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    A normal encyclopedia is curated by a relatively small amount of people who are able to reach a consensus on a controversial topic, as opposed to random strangers on the Internet with an opinion being able to edit things.
DanBC 11y ago
Topics don't need to be traditionally controversial for them to be really tricky to edit. I understand why Malvinas / Falklands is going to be tricky. I don't expect to have to go to arbcom because I disagree with someone about - versus – versus —. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=429209333#Injunction_on_article_title_disputes_secondary_to_hyphen.2Fendash_issue http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitrat...