×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikipedia Adds "WikiLove" For Newbie Editors

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the communal-hug dept.

Wikipedia 225

mikejuk writes "Wikipedia has a cunning plan to make wikipedians nicer to each other — its all about WikiLove. They can click on the Love button to make each other feel good about contributing anything from an article to an edit. The idea is that this will encourage newbie editors to stay and contribute rather than slink away into the rest of the web because their contributions get deleted and derided. Perhaps all we need for world peace is a big enough love button."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

225 comments

Government Sponsored? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582468)

Is this backed by the Ministry of Love?

Re:Government Sponsored? (3, Funny)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582492)

I'm waiting for the snickering to start on pushing people's love button to make them feel good.

Re:Government Sponsored? (4, Interesting)

edumacator (910819) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582536)

I wish slashdot had a +1 love button.

Re:Government Sponsored? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36582728)

I think the slashdot equivalent is a link to a picture of a gaping asshole.

Re:Government Sponsored? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36583890)

I wish slashdot had a +1 love button.

On Slashdot? Pfft. You'd be lucky to get a "+1 Hate" button, assuming everyone isn't too busy bitching about the Javascript again inbetween desperate attempts to rationalize downloading movies for free.

Re:Government Sponsored? (2)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582974)

You ruined a perfectly good opportunity for a "That's what she said!" joke. Well done, sour puss. -1 Dislike X-(

Re:Government Sponsored? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#36583108)

I'm waiting ... to start on pushing people's love button to make them feel good.

My wife's waiting for the same thing.

Hell will freeze over first. But I have told her that playing Xbox is training my hands. She bought it, but is growing suspicious.

Wikipedia is communism (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582528)

No, it's backed by the Ministry of Communism. When people post comments on Slashdot about inability to work with "established in-groups" on Wikipedia, it usually sounds to me like the in-group is violating the policy against acting like the owner of an article [wikipedia.org]. The policy states that Wikipedia articles are owned in common, not as the "property" of specific cliques.

Re:Wikipedia is communism (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582934)

I eagerly await an explanation of how a private-sector NGO with a set of voluntary participants setting whatever terms and conditions of use they wish to for their own sites and servers represents "Communism", much less a "Ministry"...

Re:Wikipedia is communism (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36583172)

Not to mention that information isn't property, so "ownership" in this sense is referring to responsibility, not to the right of exclusive use.

Re:Wikipedia is communism (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#36583196)

His point is that wikipedia articles should (according to the rules) be owned collectively, rather than by individuals, which is pretty core to the collectivist ideology. Collectivism and communism are closely related.

Re:Wikipedia is communism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36583224)

The policy states that Wikipedia articles are owned in common, not as the "property" of specific cliques.

Wikipedia policy seems to say just about everything, including 'but ignore the policies anyway' and 'policies are what we actually do, not what's written down somehwere so if what's actually done is to block you for being a newb then that's the policy'.

Re:Wikipedia is communism (4, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#36583254)

Did you ever play D&D? Remember the guy who memorised every little rule and regulation and then turned them to his advantage? That's the average Wikipedia troll. No matter what you do they will be able to cite a rule saying you are wrong.

It was quite a clever move really. Work behind the scenes to get the rules changed in their favour, and all the while casual editors are too busy improving articles to notice. Then once the trap is sprung go on a mass delete/revert frenzy and divvy the world up into hundreds of tiny kingdoms.

Re:Government Sponsored? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582918)

Wikilove isn't; but WikiTrue, whose agents spend their days marking ideologically problematic material with a "citation needed", is.

WikiTrue is called WikiProject Citation cleanup (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36583086)

Wikilove isn't; but WikiTrue, whose agents spend their days marking ideologically problematic material with a "citation needed", is.

A WikiProject with goals not unlike those you described actually exists on Wikipedia, and it goes by the unassuming name of WikiProject Citation cleanup [wikipedia.org]. Wikipedia regulars are genre savvy [tvtropes.org] enough to avoid names too similar to those mentioned in Orwell's famous novels.

'because their contributions get deleted' (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36582510)

*open hood of car*
>because their contributions get deleted and derided
Well, now, there's ya problem.

I tell you what (5, Insightful)

trifish (826353) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582542)

I stopped editing Wikipedia a couple of years ago and haven't gone back. Why? Because the members of the established mafia occupying the articles appeared to have much much more time than me to keep reverting or discussing (i.e. repeating the arguments over and over ad nauseam) than me.

Any change I made was immediately (usually within 1-10 minutes) reverted. I have been living my life and working, while they have apparently been just squatting "their" articles. I don't feel sorry for them, however.

Re:I tell you what (4, Insightful)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582634)

What was the topic in question? And a link to the "Discuss" arguments? I ask because it's always possible to advertise to get other people involved, perhaps people more knowledgeable than either of you. With more people (and more expert people), a middle-ground consensus is more likely to established.

Re:I tell you what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36582696)

Don't you see? That's exactly the mob mentality that rules Wikipedia, and increasingly, the net in general.

Re:I tell you what (1, Funny)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582792)

What's wrong with mob mentality on the Internet?

I mean, look at how swimmingly it works in real life. There's Vancouv....err....well, there's Tripoli....errr...wait....no..there's Belfast...no...dammit...there's got to be....ok...how about Lebanon?

Ahh, fuck it. You're right. Mobs suck. [wikipedia.org] ...

As an aside, is it ironic that I linked to a Wikipedia article about the results of mob mentality when we're talking about mob mentality on Wikipedia?

Re:I tell you what (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582734)

With more people (and more expert people)

Those two are NOT the same thing. Having a bunch of people editing doesn't help if the few experts get drowned out by the multitude of ignorant assholes who just sit around all day reverting articles.

Re:I tell you what (1)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 2 years ago | (#36583078)

There are many people, myself included, who would step down given someone with better credentials (especially phd level). Meritocracy and all that. Maybe the situation is worse than I think, and a Pagerank system for people would need to be used. It could be abused, but I think it could work well. People could be marked down as well as up, and the strength of that marking would depend on the 'rank' of the person doing the marking.

I'm not sure if the "wisdom of the crowds" theory applies to knowledge, as well as optimization tasks.

Re:I tell you what (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36583202)

I realize you're referring to deferring to those with genuine expertise, and I respect that and agree, but as an aside, anyone who thinks that a PhD holder necessarily has more merit has never worked for a university. Talk about a sausage factory!

Re:I tell you what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36583636)

of course it isn't an axiom, but I would take bets that most PhDs are more informed in their area of expertise than people without the advanced training. the fact that you wouldn't points to 1) a deep seeded resentment from your own failures and regrets or 2) some anecdotal experiences to the contrary. Neither reflect well upon someone who, apparently, pursues knowledge.

Re:I tell you what (3, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#36583088)

This is very common on Wikipedia. A good example would be articles on anime that have been released in the west, such as Detective Conan and Card Captor Sakura. In academic works, e.g. a printed encyclopaedia, the original names would be used for the articles. Instead the names of the bastardised versions that the western distributors did are used (Case Closed and Cardcaptors respectively).

Someone figured out a way to troll Wikipedia. Piss off all the fans who are adding useful contributions to the articles. The other common tactic is to delete all the detailed info under the pretence of merging articles together and then claiming that the article is now too long and needs to be cut back drastically. All the effort people put in to documenting characters and events, even the minor ones, is destroyed.

This is one reason why alternative single-subject wikis like Wookiepedia (Star Wars) are gaining popularity. Lengthy and in-depth articles on the most obscure topics, and so far no organised deletion trolls.

Re:I tell you what (3, Insightful)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582768)

Wanna know what's worse? The guy probably just had a reversion script running.

Re:I tell you what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36582810)

This is why I don't edit or post any information anywhere. People get so smart, arrogant and jump all over you, doesn't matter who is right. I have seen some people go ape nasty on someone while they had no idea what they were talking about.

The Auto-Delete Bots Really Bothered Me (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582814)

Three years ago or so I decided to try to upload clips to classic rock songs that I had on CD that had their own pages on Wikipedia. They were constantly deleted. If a song had a page, I figured it'd be notable enough to have a fair use clip of it and so for about twenty songs I carefully selected the best 10% of the song (or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter) and turned it into the lowest quality ogg in Audacity. Two bots were particularly brutal (DASHBot [wikipedia.org] and FileBot [wikipedia.org]). Months later someone would seemingly voluntarily orphan the fair use examples I had uploaded and one by one they disappeared. Well screw that, I'm done investing my time into something that just gets deleted by a bot whose owner does not respond when I comment on their talk page asking for help and justification. It'd be one thing if someone would explain to me what I'm doing wrong but it appears what I'm doing wrong is volunteering my time to Wikipedia in the first place. It's not like my examples are being improved or adjusted -- just deleted. So forget it, I have better projects to invest my time in.

Re:The Auto-Delete Bots Really Bothered Me (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36583164)

Sorry that the only way you could contribute was by breaking copyright. Fair use, sigh...

Re:I tell you what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36582936)

It seems to me that their dedication leads to higher quality articles. I've been able to make several changes without having them reverted, and I must admit that the changes of mine that were reverted, were not of the best quality. Perhaps you should write better articles?

Re:I tell you what (4, Interesting)

twocows (1216842) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582998)

I had a similar experience adding some minor details to a page. I wasn't particularly busy that day, so I quoted enough Wikipedia bureaucracy at them to fill a book and they finally left the details in.

The problem with Wikipedia is just as you say; too many people have their little pet pages and to get anything done you need to throw the book at them. Nobody's going to bother doing that.

Be specific (1)

saibot834 (1061528) | more than 2 years ago | (#36583014)

I tell you what I tell everyone with this kind of argument: Please be more specific. Tell us your username, your edits (diffs!), then we can evaluate and judge for ourselves. Otherwise, it's just FUD you're spreading.

Incidentally, I know a number of ex-users who saw Wikipedia as a platform for their own personal opinion / view of the world, a means for self-expression and so forth. They were frustrated as they did not succeed (obviously) and now they complain about Wikipedia just the way you do and use the same vocabulary you did in your posts.

Re:I tell you what (3, Informative)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 2 years ago | (#36583074)

These years, when I look up wikipedia for an article, I often go to the 2007 version (or 2009 if it is too small). It is usually longer, the "removal wars" began around 2008-2009 . Only on recent events do I use the current version.

Re:I tell you what (4, Informative)

devphaeton (695736) | more than 2 years ago | (#36583084)

Same here. I was correcting the BitchX article (it pointed to Bitchx.com as the IRC Client's website, which is a domain squatter. BitchX.org is the real site). Within minutes, it was reverted. I corrected it again with a better description (assuming I wasn't clear enough the first time), same thing. Finally, someone else corrected it, and all history of the battle disappeared.

However, I did look at the history and saw that this has been done several times by several other people, only to get reverted back to the wrong website each time.

The only thing this really does is make me sad though. Wikipedia could be (and sometimes still is) a great resource, but bullshit like this is what ruins it for everyone.

Re:I tell you what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36583246)

Absolutely. It's like a fucking cult.

Re:I tell you what (3, Informative)

gravis777 (123605) | more than 2 years ago | (#36583420)

Same issue here. I would try to make simple changes, like change a birthdate on a page. Some obviously had issues, I cannot remember the celebrity off the top of my head, but in the article, her birthdate was stated 10 years later than what was stated in the summery in the side column. A simple visit to numerous fan sites showed that the date in the article was wrong, so I would change it, and provide links to support the change. It would be reverted back usually within a few minutes.

I had a similar issue with our city page. I love in a very small town, and the page on Wikipedia was pretty much full of racial slurs and misinformation, not a single piece of which was linked to. Made several complaints and tried to change the page, but it kept getting reverted, and the responses I got were that the information on the page was accurate.

Re:I tell you what (2)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 2 years ago | (#36583570)

I often put a comment in the "Comments" section, but don't actually do the edit myself. That gives them the opportunity to discuss about it and make a final decision. And sometimes they've actually taken my comment into account!!

Re:I tell you what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36583590)

Yup, weakipedia sucks shit.

Re:I tell you what (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#36583598)

Same here, except I'm very against them being so deletion happy. Disk space and bandwidth are cheap. Unless it's a clear violation of the law, there's no reason to delete anything. Instead, stuff gets tagged as "not notable" and is disappeared forever.

I understand wanting to have standards (i.e. the need to cite sources and whatnot), but a simple "This article currently has no sources or citations - find some!" and a hell of a lot more leniency will make Wikipedia suck a lot less.

Some kinda magic karmic meter won't keep people staying around Wikipedia. Getting rid of the assholes and/or the asshole policies is the way to go.

Bad editors (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36582544)

How about a plan to get rid of editors who don't want someone else's changes their THEIR article, reasonable or not?

next. (3, Funny)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582646)

Then get rid of editors with more than 10 reverts.
Then get rid of editors who create articles that are not relevant.
Then get rid of editors who did not get enough wiki love points.

In the end there will be only one! and we will have to get rid of him too, because nobody read his article.

wikipedia is a social experiment after all, the fact that is happens to be a something like e encyclopedia as weel is a nice side effect.

PS, if you mod as funny, we will have to get rid of you as well ;)

Love the big enough love button idea (0)

youn (1516637) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582546)

Maybe someone can implement it like they are implementing the 10,000 year clock :)

Re:Love the big enough love button idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36582580)

if you love everything, you love nothing. it's all about the contrast.

What We Need For World Peace (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36582602)

1. Nuke Israel.
2. Nuke Washington, D.C.

That is all.

Re:What We Need For World Peace (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36582660)

No: Just nuke all these idiots who propose to nuke anything to get World Peace.

...

Stack overflow

Re:What We Need For World Peace (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582842)

1. Nuke Israel.
2. Nuke Washington, D.C.

That is all.

Yeah. Because then we'd only have Somali pirates, Pakistan/India, most of the Middle East, China/Tibet, etc.etc.

If your solution to obtain world peace involves nuking anybody at all, then it can only end after the entire planet has been nuked.

Re:What We Need For World Peace (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#36583478)

Nuking Israel would probably be enough - it's a big place, the problem is persuading all of the other asshats to move there first. Maybe make it the site of an international conference on oil and intellectual property rights or something...

Too much happiness (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36582618)

Much like the "like" button on Facebook, "love" will feel very awkward for things that are correct and worthwhile, but depressing. Say, amended figures for genocides.

Re:Too much happiness (2)

surgen (1145449) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582776)

It does capture the most important aspect of the Facebook like button, its a lightweight operation for the person doing the liking. As a facebook "advertiser", I got the email about the change from "become a fan" to "like", their entire justification to do so was that it would be easier for the user to commit to doing. Yes, love will feel awkward, but it will get significantly more use than actually going onto someones userpage to write some sort of thank-you.

Like, +1, now WikiLove (3, Interesting)

rbrausse (1319883) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582638)

I don't get the idea behind such features - where are dislike, -1, WikiHate?

Those one-click-feelgood buttons are not even a valid substitute for real feedback...

Re:Like, +1, now WikiLove (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36582712)

Why are we even entertaining the idea that a so-called "encyclopedia" should even HAVE such options? Why do facts and information have to be subject to the cult of personality and whether or not people "like" the idea or not?

Re:Like, +1, now WikiLove (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#36583112)

I hope they do charts for the most loved articles. My money goes on:

1. Hitler
2. Jesus
3. Natalie Portman

Re:Like, +1, now WikiLove (1)

Edgewize (262271) | more than 2 years ago | (#36584136)

The point isn't to provide critical or useful feedback. The point is to provide positive reinforcement and emotion. Most human beings, believe it or not, enjoy feelings of acceptance and appreciation and despise criticism. You're welcome to tell them to go home until they grow a thicker skin, but then all you've got left is a bunch of nerds and engineers trying to maintain articles about 15th century art.

Millions of little fiefdoms (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36582664)

I discovered recently just how petty and arrogant some Wikipedia contributors are. I attempted to clean up an article, nothing major, just fixing some awkward sentences that were poorly worded, confusing, or grammatically incorrect. Less than half an hour later it was changed back and I received a message from the author of the parts I corrected telling me that it was "his" article and that the sections I fixed were already perfect and needed no changes. I made my case for keeping my edits, explained that I made the article read better without changing any facts, and then changed them back. The next message I got was an angry post insulting me personally, and telling me that there was no way I was more of an expert on the subject ("or the English language" he actually said that) than he was. This is probably one of the worst examples but it can't be the only one.

You can't make people like that "love" each other. They are protective, bitter, autists who spend all day refreshing "their" articles and reverting the edits of anyone who attempts to change them.

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36582746)

They...spend all day refreshing "their" articles and reverting the edits of anyone who attempts to change them.

I can't imagine this kind of selfish, closed-minded behavior in the world today. I mean, refreshing MANUALLY? Who has time for that anymore? You should at least be able to set up an email notification to streamline your selfishness.

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36582780)

I had a similar experience. I added important new information to an article about the subject I am an expert on (15+ years professional experience) which took me a couple of hours to write and cite. All additions were deleted, reverted and gutted within 24 hours, with no sane explanation. I did not bother to contest or debate this - my time is better spent where it's appreciated.

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms (0)

citking (551907) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582884)

You're not the only one. Wikipedia editors and contributors are a self-appointed elite bunch who don't care about anything other than the changes/creations they've made. It's an elite world and outsiders aren't allowed (but their money is certainly welcome!)

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms (1)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582954)

That pretty much mirrors my experience. I honestly think what Wikipedia needs most is a method to stop that kind of behavior. Maybe only allow people to make up to 10 revisions on an article per year (including reverts). That would prevent people from "camping", allow others to contribute, and encourage people to make small contributions to numerous articles instead of major contributions to a select few articles. It would also encourage people to really think about the changes they're making before pushing through the update.

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36582986)

How come for every Wikipedia abuse story there are never any reference links to the disputed changes? It's like you people only comprehend one POV in an argument: yours.

And no, I've never edited Wikipedia. Anything but article rewrites are largely pointless because the information is eventually lost anyway.

Re:Millions of little fiefdoms (3, Informative)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#36583178)

Sometimes you can get your edits to stick by asking a neutral moderator to check them and make a decision. Then it is 50/50 if the moderator is an asshat or not but it is worth a try just to see the steam shooting from the ears of the articles rightful "owner". If you are really lucky the original author might give up on Wikipedia entirely and you can feel like you achieved something worthwhile.

Oh yes, and don't forget that you can't remove stuff on your personal page permanently. Even if you delete it, it remains in the history. Make sure you put copious links to the original authors asshattery on his page (or permanent record as I like to call it). Encourages them to stop editing Wikipedia.

Harsh but this is the only way we have any hope of reclaiming it.

Encouragement (0, Redundant)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582686)

If you want to really encourage newbies, you need to get rid of the anal-retentive assholes with the "Now that I'm at the party, no one else is invited" attitudes. Every time I've tried to add a quality edit over there, it inevitably got removed for no good reason. And most of the time it's removed by an editor whose sole contribution to Wikipedia seemed to be removing edits. I finally just gave up trying (I suspect I'm hardly alone).

Re:Encouragement (5, Informative)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582944)

You know, everyone on slashdot keeps saying stuff like this, but in my corner of the Wikipedia (palaeontology), most pages are under-edited. If anyone comes along and adds relevant, cited information, the edits are most certainly kept. If you cite a real paper that you've read and understood, we'll be pressing that love button!

There is a lot of reverting, but most of it is reverting popular misconceptions that have no citation, or ideologically driven edits (usually creationists, again with no citations).

Is this because people are going and trying to edit the Mohammed or Jesus pages or something? Because I really don't get what you're all on about. Maybe my interests are esoteric, but I've never had a real problem getting edits to stick on any subject, even on controversial fringe topics like cryptozoology.

Re:Encouragement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36583046)

omg... palaeontology? really? i am sure creationists will be more than happy to lend a hand...

Re:Encouragement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36583306)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Finnigan [wikipedia.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bernard_Finnigan [wikipedia.org] They finally caved into reason though with that recent example, bit late now though.

Re:Encouragement (3, Insightful)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 2 years ago | (#36583552)

So you're editing a page about a politician involved in child pornography charges with the complication of a legal embargo, and you're bitching that there was a long debate about it that went your way eventually? I'm shocked! SHOCKED I tells you! Cabals everywhere!

Re:Encouragement (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#36583738)

Palaeontology is probably quite unusual, in that I expect that there's a fairly large overlap between the set of people that know about palaeontology and the set of people that think that they know about palaeontology. In fields where there is less of an overlap, there is more of a problem.

How soon (3, Insightful)

realinvalidname (529939) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582704)

until someone marks the "Love button" for speedy deletion?

How soon (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36582870)

...until people stop using the title as the beginning of their first sentence?

Gave up on Wikipedia long ago (4, Informative)

citking (551907) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582804)

With the problems I've had in the past I don't know if this is going to be nearly enough. Wikipedia's problems lies in the fact that many, if not most, of their long-time editors consider themselves the end-all be-all of Wikipedia. I've contributed to several pages, cited properly, and still get reverted because someone disagrees with the page for reasons other than factual accuracy. For example, when editing an article about Vince Lombardi and citing sources the changes were reverted for no given reason. When I asked why I was reverted I was not given a reasonable answer (and was trolled in the process). So I stopped contributing. I'm now content to let the self-appointed elites run the site.

That's the other reason I will never give a red cent to Wikipedia. So long as the Wikipedia mafia of editors continue to run things the way that they do I think the site will suffer and eventually wither out as it's last gasp of neutrality and openness disappear behind the power-hungry editors who run the site the way that they want to run it. If Jimmy wants Wikipedia to succeed he'll start with the cadre of idiots who currently run the place.

Re:Gave up on Wikipedia long ago (0)

christurkel (520220) | more than 2 years ago | (#36583096)

The source of the problem is Wales himself. He lets this go on. He bends and ignores rules because he can get away with it. He white washes history to make it seem like he is the sole founder of Wikipedia. The arrogance flows from him. Get rid of Wales and the rest will follow suit.

Re:Gave up on Wikipedia long ago (1)

m0n0RAIL (920043) | more than 2 years ago | (#36584028)

I feel like going through all the slashdot comments like this that basically say "I made a great edit and it was reverted for no reason" and adding [citation needed] to them, because not a single one of you has provided a link to your allegedly great edit. Maybe you're just not as good an author as you think you are? Please prove me wrong with a link.

WIKIFUCKYOU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36582818)

I have a 3TB harddrive... that is more love for knowledge than wikipedia will ever have.

I want a "hate" button (2, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582830)

I personally would use a "FUCK YOU, YOU MORON" button a lot more often in Wikipedia than a "Have a kitten" button. Maybe it's the articles I edit attract more assholes (yes, I'm aware of the implication of that).

love button (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36582892)

I have a love "button" that is not getting enough attention. Please come and play with my love button!

Just an expansion (3, Funny)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582920)

The WikiLove campaign [wikipedia.org] has been around for ages, with the goal being simply to encourage friendliness and a positive learning/working environment. Various user scripts have been around for a while, this is just an implicit acceptance of that concept, as the feature will now be built-in instead of an option feature you have to search for.

Re:Just an expansion (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36583444)

The WikiLove campaign [wikipedia.org] has been around for ages, with the goal being simply to encourage friendliness and a positive learning/working environment. Various user scripts have been around for a while, this is just an implicit acceptance of that concept, as the feature will now be built-in instead of an option feature you have to search for.

So...You have to ask yourself, what sort of a community needs such a campaign?

Great, more ammo for the Wikipedos (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36582928)

Great, now Wikipedos can have an additional method to spray their "love" on 13-year-olds. Just fucking great.

The "Facebooking" of the Internet... (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582940)

Er, Love?...I'm not trying to be negative here, but couldn't we simply leave the childish antics of Facebook within the confines of that pseudo-internet realm, or should we all simply give up and accept the fact that Facebook will ultimately become the internet?

What's next, a .groovy TLD? Give me a break.

IMHO, society has also cheapened the word "love" with stuff like this as well. No wonder marriage has become an exercise in futility with the current divorce rates when the word love has been reduced to feedback to a complete stranger on a blog post. I'm all for more kindness and compassion in the world, but c'mon...

Wikipedia needs a karma system: write before edit (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36582942)

The problem with Wikipedia is the deletionists: those who destroy content rather than creating it. There should be a karma system where you have to add a certain amount of content before you can use the karma points to destroy content.

It's gotten to the point where specialized wikis are getting all the love -- I know people who stopped contributing 5 years ago and would never even consider going back.

This isn't what first came to mind ... (2)

Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) | more than 2 years ago | (#36582978)

when I read the title. I pictured the Wikimedia Foundation getting into the dating site market with some sort of Wiki-dating site (www.wikimatch.com) where people could edit the profiles of those with whom they had dates to offer commentary/feedback/pictures/etc. Or maybe something a bit more NSFW.

I can picture so many ways this could be (and will be) abused; as a (perhaps mild but still cruel) example picture getting a group together to send Beer "love" to a recovering alcoholic.

Is it as cunning as a fox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36583294)

who's just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University?

Wikipedia mentality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36583388)

Why solve the problem (stuck-up, shit-for-brains administrators) when you can invent pointless shit?

P.S. will administrators be able to delete "love letters"?

You know what would encourage new editors? (1)

psm321 (450181) | more than 2 years ago | (#36583418)

Kick out the deletionists. Seriously, Wikipedia had such promise before they took over.

Re:You know what would encourage new editors? (1)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 2 years ago | (#36583954)

They only exist because of the trash above them allowing them to do what they do.

Here's a little suggestion... (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 2 years ago | (#36584036)

Ban all deletionists. And don't be so insanely strict on fair use picture size. I swear, I've seen pics being resized to be smaller than their thumbnails!

Never more !!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36584118)

I did my best to contribute to Wikipedia. Unfortunately there are some stupid people that truly believe that they own all knowledge in the planet.

I will never waist my time with wikipedia.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...