8 votes

What do we think about posting Wikipedia articles to Tildes?

I personally find it uselful in certain cases, like getting an overview of areas where we have many solutions to a problem, like who should the Democratic nominee be or how should we make money.

14 comments

  1. Deimos
    Link
    I generally don't like it, and have previously discouraged it (and even removed them in some cases). Here's a comment I posted on one that I removed last year:

    I generally don't like it, and have previously discouraged it (and even removed them in some cases). Here's a comment I posted on one that I removed last year:

    Please don't just submit a random Wikipedia article with no context. If you'd like to start a discussion about something in the article, consider making a text post explaining what you find interesting about it, so that people have something to go off.

    I know that this is something that people do regularly on Hacker News, but I don't think it's a good behavior to emulate. It's the equivalent of old forum posts like: "Giraffes. Discuss." It's not an effective way to get a conversation started.

    25 votes
  2. [3]
    acdw
    Link
    As a comment to a topic, I think it's fine. I don't know about as topics themselves though. I think it would end up being a r/TIL thing where none of the information is really all that...

    As a comment to a topic, I think it's fine. I don't know about as topics themselves though. I think it would end up being a r/TIL thing where none of the information is really all that interesting. Slash it becomes a race for easy points.

    9 votes
    1. [2]
      ali
      Link Parent
      I think it’s a great idea, both articles linked provide a ton of information, condensed into one accessible website. If the information is not interesting to people, it will disappear soon without...

      I think it’s a great idea, both articles linked provide a ton of information, condensed into one accessible website. If the information is not interesting to people, it will disappear soon without any harm done, just like any other post would

      4 votes
      1. acdw
        Link Parent
        That's a fair point. I guess I'm saying why I wouldn't post a wiki article.

        That's a fair point. I guess I'm saying why I wouldn't post a wiki article.

        1 vote
  3. [4]
    hungariantoast
    Link
    My personal opinion is that posting topics linking to Wikipedia articles should come with the requirement of providing a lengthy explanation of why you are linking to the Wikipedia article. Of...

    My personal opinion is that posting topics linking to Wikipedia articles should come with the requirement of providing a lengthy explanation of why you are linking to the Wikipedia article.

    Of course, if the topic is formatted as a question or something close to that, and not just a "look at this" kind of topic, then that is different, but for users just wanting to show off cool or potentially informative Wikipedia articles, I think some sort of explanation from the OP should be required.

    Even better would be if users just posted their own write-ups of whatever the article was about and then linked the article as supported reading for their write-up.

    As for why I think that:

    Pretty much all the topics linking to Wikipedia articles on Tildes have not generated much discussion. I am not actually sure why that is, considering there is plenty of discussion material on Wikipedia (probably more than any other online space), but I think part of it has to do with the length of the reading material and that Tildes is still a small online community, so we haven't quite captured those special kinds of nerds who might, for instance, be eager to write an in-depth comment about the dissolution of the Black Army of Hungary.[1]


    1. Except for @cfabbro.

    9 votes
    1. [3]
      cfabbro
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Speaking of Hungarian military history... although occurring quite a bit earlier than the formation/dissolution of the Black Army, you might still get a kick out of the latest Kings & Generals...

      Speaking of Hungarian military history... although occurring quite a bit earlier than the formation/dissolution of the Black Army, you might still get a kick out of the latest Kings & Generals video: Mongol Invasions of Hungary and Poland (1242-1296)

      2 votes
      1. [2]
        hungariantoast
        Link Parent
        Thanks, I am currently watching their series on the Ottomans, and I plan on watching the Mongol series after that. (I'm also still planning on reading Transmetropolitan. Sorry that is has taken me...

        Thanks, I am currently watching their series on the Ottomans, and I plan on watching the Mongol series after that.

        (I'm also still planning on reading Transmetropolitan. Sorry that is has taken me so long to get around to it.)

        1 vote
        1. cfabbro
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          Their ongoing Ottoman empire series is one of my favs too, since I have a particular soft spot for the history in the region of the Eastern Roman Empire. I have even fully conquered the entire...

          Their ongoing Ottoman empire series is one of my favs too, since I have a particular soft spot for the history in the region of the Eastern Roman Empire. I have even fully conquered the entire world as both Byzantium and the Ottomans in EU4 (ironman mode). ;)

          Sorry that is has taken me so long to get around to it

          Hah... I am the reigning champion of getting sidetracked with other things, so no worries! :P

          1 vote
  4. patience_limited
    Link
    I'd say Wikipedia entries are fine as links to supporting information in a comment, especially when clarifying terms of a discussion or providing a quick summary of what's already established...

    I'd say Wikipedia entries are fine as links to supporting information in a comment, especially when clarifying terms of a discussion or providing a quick summary of what's already established knowledge.

    The examples you provided are highly controversial (in a way that's known to provoke endless partisan bickering), or insufficiently broad to facilitate the discussion indicated by "how should we make money".

    I recall a couple of very obscure Wiki entries posted as curiosity topics for discussion, but don't think that they spurred much useful commentary. I'd say Wikipedia entries are potential sources of low-effort topic posts which should be discouraged, unless the questions they provoke are clearly and explicitly stated as ask.survey or otherwise opened to more involved conversations.

    5 votes
  5. [2]
    spit-evil-olive-tips
    Link
    Hmm, so random (in more ways than one) idea this got me thinking about... Wikipedia has a random article link on their sidebar. This takes you to a completely random article, which means it's...

    Hmm, so random (in more ways than one) idea this got me thinking about...

    Wikipedia has a random article link on their sidebar. This takes you to a completely random article, which means it's typically short / not super interesting.

    Wikipedia also has featured articles:

    Featured articles are considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles. Before being listed here, articles are reviewed as featured article candidates for accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style, according to our featured article criteria. There are 5,713 featured articles out of 6,011,932 articles on the English Wikipedia (~0.1% are featured).

    You can get a random featured article using this link:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RandomInCategory/Featured_articles

    I think it might be interesting to have a Tildes-y take on "today I learned", where a bot or the site itself posted a new random featured article once a day. Comments in the thread could focus on interesting wiki-rabbit-holes that the featured article sent us down, or any other interesting "TIL" type content.

    Because of the vetting done by Wikipedia's process, this is one of the rare cases where I think it would make sense to allow a bot to post content, on the assumption that it'll be high-quality and in-depth enough to be on Tildes.

    edit: here's a kick-the-tires topic I posted to get a concrete demo of how this might work

    4 votes
  6. [3]
    Algernon_Asimov
    (edited )
    Link
    I gave up arguing this point ages ago. I'm against it, but other people like it. I came up with my own solution: I've created a filter for all posts tagged wikipedia, and I tag all these posts...

    I gave up arguing this point ages ago. I'm against it, but other people like it.

    I came up with my own solution: I've created a filter for all posts tagged wikipedia, and I tag all these posts with wikipedia. Out of sight, out of mind!

    EDIT: This explains why I didn't see this post until I stumbled across an untagged Wikipedia post elsewhere by @spit-evil-olive-tips. This post is tagged with wikipedia so it's hidden from me. Oh well. The benefits still outweigh the drawbacks.

    3 votes
    1. [3]
      Comment deleted by author
      Link Parent
      1. [2]
        Algernon_Asimov
        Link Parent
        I agree that no other post gets tagged with the name of the site. However, for most other posts, the site is irrelevant: it's just a platform for delivering information. But for Wikipedia posts,...

        I agree that no other post gets tagged with the name of the site. However, for most other posts, the site is irrelevant: it's just a platform for delivering information.

        But for Wikipedia posts, the site is the point. The aim of those posts is to highlight a Wikipedia article. It's all about "Look what I found on Wikipedia!"

        Meanwhile, the point of the filtering feature is for us to be able to customise our feeds to hide things we don't want to see. I don't want to see random Wikipedia posts - especially now that @spit-evil-olive-tips says he's going to post a new Wikipedia article every single day.

        I am therefore using the features available to me (tagging and filtering) to hide this noise from my Tildes feed, rather than complaining about it. I did my complaining a long time ago. It didn't change anything: people still insisted on posting Wikipedia articles. And me complaining just creates negativity.

        So I switched to a different tactic.

        5 votes
        1. spit-evil-olive-tips
          Link Parent
          To be clear...I'm not saying that I'm going to post one every day. I suggested that we might post one everyday, and posted one day's example of what it might look like. If, at some point in the...

          especially now that @spit-evil-olive-tips says he's going to post a new Wikipedia article every single day

          To be clear...I'm not saying that I'm going to post one every day. I suggested that we might post one everyday, and posted one day's example of what it might look like.

          If, at some point in the future, we do have them post automatically, it'd be trivial to add a fixed set of tags to them (this already happens with the recurring tag). That could certainly include wikipedia, and/or daily random featured article, or whatever other tag made it easy for people not interested in that recurring post to filter it out.

          3 votes