18 votes

A third of Wikipedia discussions are stuck in forever beefs

6 comments

  1. [4]
    alyaza
    Link
    i've always found wikipedia dynamics somewhat interesting given the scope of the project and the community that's built up around it--this article, that said, is completely unsurprising. wikipedia...

    i've always found wikipedia dynamics somewhat interesting given the scope of the project and the community that's built up around it--this article, that said, is completely unsurprising. wikipedia is fucking terrible and unbelievably bureaucratic at resolving conflicts.

    7 votes
    1. [3]
      Amarok
      Link Parent
      Some of those beefs were longer than the actual novel 'War and Peace' - and when that sort of pedantic nonsense starts up, someone should be putting the idiots involved in a referee chokehold....

      Some of those beefs were longer than the actual novel 'War and Peace' - and when that sort of pedantic nonsense starts up, someone should be putting the idiots involved in a referee chokehold. Instead Wikipedia just lets the crazy pile up and fester. They have some pretty strange, nonsensical ideas about 'verifiability' as well. At some point that process lost its objectivity and just became a vehicle for even more pedantic bickering.

      I always thought they needed a 'gold' version of every page - one that had been vetted and locked-in by experts and would be shown as the 'default' version of that page to everyone. People could still edit it, but it'd have to be re-certified gold again before those changes became permanent and part of that default page. Anyone looking to find the 'live' editable version could easily find it or set a preference for it.

      That'd build a moat between the bickering bullshit and the people using it to look up useful information. It'd also allow for some sensible quality enforcement, especially on big disputed articles where two or more 'sides' are present trying to alter reality so their side can win a silly internet argument.

      9 votes
      1. mrbig
        Link Parent
        Spiritism is not well known in English speaking countries. I live in the only country in the world where spiritism has a large following, I have been a spiritist for the last 20 years, I worked in...

        Spiritism is not well known in English speaking countries. I live in the only country in the world where spiritism has a large following, I have been a spiritist for the last 20 years, I worked in spiritist libraries reading basically all the time, I gave lectures, I taught courses, I have experience in most of its practices. I studied this religion through and through. I'm also able to make balanced contributions and have no intention whatsoever to proselytize or deny other points of view. Years ago, I tried correcting some minor mistakes in articles of the English Wikipedia about spiritism. NOPE!

        3 votes
      2. unknown user
        Link Parent
        What you're describing (or something like it) is called pending changes protection: However, it's not used in exactly the way you describe; it's a tool to prevent persistent vandalism rather than...

        I always thought they needed a 'gold' version of every page - one that had been vetted and locked-in by experts and would be shown as the 'default' version of that page to everyone. People could still edit it, but it'd have to be re-certified gold again before those changes became permanent and part of that default page. Anyone looking to find the 'live' editable version could easily find it or set a preference for it.

        What you're describing (or something like it) is called pending changes protection:

        When a page under pending changes protection is edited by an unregistered (IP addresses) editor or a new user, the edit is not directly visible to the majority of Wikipedia readers, until it is reviewed and accepted by an editor with the pending changes reviewer right. […] Readers not logged in (the vast majority of readers) are shown the latest accepted version of the page; logged-in users see the latest version of the page, with all changes (reviewed or not) applied.

        However, it's not used in exactly the way you describe; it's a tool to prevent persistent vandalism rather than ensure the correctness of content. PC2 (pending changes level 2) has an effect closer to what you want:

        When a page with PC/2 protection is edited by a non-reviewer, not just unregistered and new users, that edit and all following edits by any user are not included in the article displayed to the general public, until the edits are approved by a reviewer.

        but since an RFC in 2017, it's no longer used.

        It's probably worth noting that Pending Changes has been controversial since it was first proposed – it goes against one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, that "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute".

        1 vote
  2. Octofox
    (edited )
    Link
    Wikipedia has a lot of weirdness like this but I still donate every year because they provide me with a lot of value and really do try to do whats best for the user. I hate to imagine what would...

    Wikipedia has a lot of weirdness like this but I still donate every year because they provide me with a lot of value and really do try to do whats best for the user. I hate to imagine what would happen if wikipedia shut down and Google or Facebook became the replacement. Would it really be better to have zuckerberg decide the truth rather than 2 random people arguing over it?

    6 votes
  3. unknown user
    Link
    Offtopic, but I found this side-discussion about the naming & arguments surrounding Maize vs Corn on Wikipedia absolutely fascinating. Four pages of intense discussion stretching from 2005 all the...

    Offtopic, but I found this side-discussion about the naming & arguments surrounding Maize vs Corn on Wikipedia absolutely fascinating. Four pages of intense discussion stretching from 2005 all the way through to 2018, with four failed attempts to rename the page, and countless rehashed arguments.

    I have however come to the conclusion I am "pro-Maize", ironically.

    6 votes