Wikipedia editors penchant for pedanticism never ceases to amaze. It's a large part of a reason I stopped editing. You will encounter people who have a real hair across their ass about a topic and...
Wikipedia editors penchant for pedanticism never ceases to amaze. It's a large part of a reason I stopped editing. You will encounter people who have a real hair across their ass about a topic and who will absolutely fight to have something written their way - and will expertly leverage the "tools" of Wikipedia to beat you down if there is a conflict of edits - Including abuse of the quick deletion feature. I mean, I'm sure its got to be better these days - but I had what turned into a frustrating experience years ago. So I can totally see how people could be literally fighting over the verbiage of corn.
This Wikipedia page could be interesting as well, it goes over all the 'lamest edit wars', going over instances where differing opinions lead to edit wars that really should be of no consequence....
This Wikipedia page could be interesting as well, it goes over all the 'lamest edit wars', going over instances where differing opinions lead to edit wars that really should be of no consequence. I didn't find corn/maze on listed there.
I'm not sure why this is such an issue. There are many Wikipedia articles which have a formal name that differs from more common, colloquial usage, and those colloquialisms are usually listed...
I'm not sure why this is such an issue. There are many Wikipedia articles which have a formal name that differs from more common, colloquial usage, and those colloquialisms are usually listed right beside the formal name and its variations. I've run into this several times in the past.
Take a look at the dendrocnide moroides article as a good example. There are several different colloquialisms in there that I guarantee you are more likely to be used and recognized by the general populace, and selecting one as the authoritative term makes no sense whatsoever. But your average person sure as shit isn't going to be searching for this article using the term "dendrocnide moroides", but by using one of those colloquialisms.
Because of this conflict, it makes more sense to use the most accurate, unambiguous term possible for the article itself, that way a more ambiguous term like "corn" could either result in an immediate redirect or (more sensibly) bring you to a disambiguation page. This brings you the best of both worlds, and this shit is how Wikipedia has worked for a long time now. It's not exactly a novel concept.
Wikipedia editors penchant for pedanticism never ceases to amaze. It's a large part of a reason I stopped editing. You will encounter people who have a real hair across their ass about a topic and who will absolutely fight to have something written their way - and will expertly leverage the "tools" of Wikipedia to beat you down if there is a conflict of edits - Including abuse of the quick deletion feature. I mean, I'm sure its got to be better these days - but I had what turned into a frustrating experience years ago. So I can totally see how people could be literally fighting over the verbiage of corn.
This Wikipedia page could be interesting as well, it goes over all the 'lamest edit wars', going over instances where differing opinions lead to edit wars that really should be of no consequence. I didn't find corn/maze on listed there.
I'm not sure why this is such an issue. There are many Wikipedia articles which have a formal name that differs from more common, colloquial usage, and those colloquialisms are usually listed right beside the formal name and its variations. I've run into this several times in the past.
Take a look at the dendrocnide moroides article as a good example. There are several different colloquialisms in there that I guarantee you are more likely to be used and recognized by the general populace, and selecting one as the authoritative term makes no sense whatsoever. But your average person sure as shit isn't going to be searching for this article using the term "dendrocnide moroides", but by using one of those colloquialisms.
Because of this conflict, it makes more sense to use the most accurate, unambiguous term possible for the article itself, that way a more ambiguous term like "corn" could either result in an immediate redirect or (more sensibly) bring you to a disambiguation page. This brings you the best of both worlds, and this shit is how Wikipedia has worked for a long time now. It's not exactly a novel concept.