←back to thread

598 points leotravis10 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
bawolff ◴[] No.45129304[source]
There has been this trend recently of calling Wikipedia the last good thing on the internet.

And i agree its great, i spend an inordinate amount of my time on Wikimedia related things.

But i think there is a danger here with all these articles putting Wikipedia too much on a pedestal. It isn't perfect. It isn't perfectly neutral or perfectly reliable. It has flaws.

The true best part of Wikipedia is that its a work in progress and people are working to make it a little better everyday. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact we aren't there yet. We'll never be "there". But hopefully we'll continue to be a little bit closer every day. And that is what makes Wikipedia great.

replies(28): >>45129452 #>>45129539 #>>45130082 #>>45130452 #>>45130510 #>>45130655 #>>45130889 #>>45131753 #>>45132388 #>>45133857 #>>45134041 #>>45134322 #>>45134802 #>>45135047 #>>45135272 #>>45135426 #>>45135634 #>>45135865 #>>45135925 #>>45136197 #>>45136339 #>>45136658 #>>45137707 #>>45139242 #>>45140012 #>>45140417 #>>45140938 #>>45148201 #
xorvoid ◴[] No.45130082[source]
I would say this is all we really should reasonably expect from our knowledge consensus systems. In fact it’s the same values that “science” stands on: do our best everyday and continue to try improving.

It’s a bit hard for me to imagine something better (in practice). It’s easy to want more or feel like reality doesn’t live up to one’s idealism.

But we live here and now in the messiness of the present.

Viva la Wikipedia!

replies(3): >>45130299 #>>45130539 #>>45137130 #
abnercoimbre ◴[] No.45130299[source]
Indeed, Wikipedia really is worth celebrating. While I sympathize with the GP, we should avoid devolving into purity spirals or we'll never have moments of joy.
replies(2): >>45132293 #>>45134895 #
sshine ◴[] No.45132293{3}[source]
It’s possible to both criticise Wikipedia and celebrate it.
replies(3): >>45132390 #>>45134559 #>>45134730 #
xeromal ◴[] No.45134559{4}[source]
You know when you're proud of something and you tell it to someone and they always find something to nitpick while also saying good job. That's what this feels like. It's very unnecessary. Time and a place
replies(1): >>45134806 #
sshine ◴[] No.45134806[source]
That’s one example, but I mean less personal. Wikipedia isn’t a person.

For example:

I’m a big fan of Wikipedia. I spent countless hours writing articles in my early twenties. I stopped because the environment got more hostile as the site grew in popularity. I think that might have been necessary to address the influx of drive-by editing, but it still meant I stopped enjoying being a contributor. I don’t appreciate the constant asking for money — as far as I understand, they’re well off without donations.

There.

I think the misconception here is that criticism has to be mean and personal. As someone who celebrates the project’s ideals, giving criticism is an act of love.

replies(2): >>45135293 #>>45136639 #
chris_wot ◴[] No.45135293[source]
You think that's bad? I got permanently banned and I started many important things on Wikipedia - like the admins noticeboard, a number of Australia communities, and the [citation needed]. I wrote dozens of articles about Australian women - none of them gave a shit and so I'm not able to write about them any more.

They are, by and large, a bunch of horrible bullies and losers - many Wikipedians don't actually care about articles creation or actual content, they fiddle about with URL fixes and categorisation. There was one horrible human being called BrownHairedGirl who did all these things and almost destroyed the place before they got indefinitely banned also.

replies(4): >>45135299 #>>45135616 #>>45136081 #>>45136687 #
ForOldHack ◴[] No.45136687[source]
I disagree. She did not almost destroy the place, she successfully turned Wikipedia into an intellectual black hole encompassing the entire human history. There are only unprintable words to describe her vileness.
replies(1): >>45137200 #
andrepd ◴[] No.45137200[source]
I'm gonna need you to elaborate on that.
replies(1): >>45162891 #
1. chris_wot ◴[] No.45162891[source]
She was removed as an admin for the most extraordinary level of bullying. She continued bullying right up to when she was finally indefinitely blocked. I was one of the people she bullied. She had a coterie of rabid followers and so was allowed to run riot for years. There were many, many good editors who left because of her behaviour.

What did she do on Wikipedia?

She "fixed" barelinks and did categorization work. On the former, she wrote a script that utterly buggered up links to the extent they were being cleaned up long after she was banned. On the latter, she was so toxic that she was eventually blocked for her actions on categories.

She was a toxic editor who did virtually no editing of content on the site.