A Third of Wikipedia Discussions Are Stuck in Forever Beefs (vice.com) 162
An anonymous reader shares a report: Wikipedia, the internet's encyclopedia, is run entirely by volunteers -- people who spend large swaths of their personal time making sure the information that hundreds of millions of people access every day stays accurate and up-to-date. Of those volunteers, 77 percent of Wikipedia articles are written by just one percent of Wikipedia editors. As such, tensions tend to get a little high, because these editors are often highly invested. They've been arguing about corn for nearly a decade, for example, and there's a long-running edit war about the meaning of neuroticism.
When editors disagree about an edit to be made on a Wikipedia article, they start by discussing it on the article's Talk page. When that doesn't result in a decision, they can open a Request for Comment (RfC). From there, any editor can choose a side or discuss the merits of whatever edit is up for discussion, and -- in theory -- come to an agreement. Or at least, some kind of decision about how to make the edit. But a new study by MIT researchers found that as many as one-third of RfC disputes go unresolved, often abandoned out of frustration or exhaustion. The most common sticking points were chalked up to inexperience, inattention from experience editors, and just plain petty bickering.
When editors disagree about an edit to be made on a Wikipedia article, they start by discussing it on the article's Talk page. When that doesn't result in a decision, they can open a Request for Comment (RfC). From there, any editor can choose a side or discuss the merits of whatever edit is up for discussion, and -- in theory -- come to an agreement. Or at least, some kind of decision about how to make the edit. But a new study by MIT researchers found that as many as one-third of RfC disputes go unresolved, often abandoned out of frustration or exhaustion. The most common sticking points were chalked up to inexperience, inattention from experience editors, and just plain petty bickering.
and people being wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:and people being wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
This. The "original research" policy really screws with things when the source says X = Y and some 2nd party source says X = Z due to a failure to comprehend the subject matter. A bunch of people will have ripped off that 2nd party so there will be endless sources of bad information.
Also, don't try to delete your account. They own your identity & your contributions forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
there are also areas where everyone are experts but have different views. Like with famous "endless image contention" in "Human Anus" article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Been there, tried to argue that, did the whole RfC, got wikilawyered and never went back. It's a joke run by control freaks.
Re: (Score:1)
Also, don't try to delete your account. They own your identity & your contributions forever.
The identity part I set aside and will not address.
As for the contributions part, when I try to edit a Wikipedia page, I am shown this text, immediately above the Publish Changes button:
If "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution" then you really have
Re: (Score:2)
The identity part is a problem, as is personal wikispaces, as well as the inability to unlink contributions from accounts. Leaving the contribution and anonymizing it to an IP or dummy when the account is deleted should be implemented.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, when an article is blatantly wrong and has a blatantly wrong source it doesn't matter if you are an expert in the field, you can't remove the text and the reference. If you really are an expert and manage to publish your own research, it'll probably have to be shared with the wrong information in the article.
But it's important! (Score:4, Funny)
Duty calls [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Yep. exactly this.
Wikipedia is good for cut and dry boring topics like "What is the pythagorean theorem" but anything else that is at all controversial exists in a quantum state between true and false information and/or bias towards the extremes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They did the same thing with poms, as in prisoners of his or her majesty (you don't write the H but you sound it) become some bullshit about pomegranates. It's free, so meh, it is as good or bad as it is. Just note all the universities around the planet, full of egoistic doctors are incapable of creating an alternate, a global shared document, prepared by qualified people for maximum social value and to promote those producing it. Never happen, egos demand it never happens, protecting egos, overpriced textb
Re: (Score:2)
They did the same thing with poms, as in prisoners of his or her majesty (you don't write the H but you sound it) become some bullshit about pomegranates.
What's with the anti-science on Slashdot? You do know that there are people who specialize in words and languages? They're called linguists. Some of them do stuff like research etymologies. That's how we know that the Prisoner of Her Majesty's Service explanation is bullshit—sorry—a folk etymology.
Scientific study. The opposite of just believing what your parents told you.
Re: (Score:3)
even Bart Simpson knows that "frog" is a derogatory term for a Frenchman.
So your argument for "frog" in "frog dog" being a reference to the French is that you know it, so it must be true? And your proof is that someone else used "frog" to mean "French" in some other context?
Look, I'm not saying it's not true. I'm not saying the other etymology is correct. But your argument isn't solid. Cite your sources, and make sure they're reputable.
Emotions cloud objectivity, and you don't realize (Score:4, Insightful)
A person who normally is very cool-headed and objective will still have some topic to which they are emotionally attached.
That emotional attachment warps their cognitive processes to the point where they think they are being totally cool and objective, but they aren't. They will start dropping logical fallacies and engaging in defensive tactics left and right, and have no idea they are doing this. They will even deny it when it is pointed out to them.
Rising above this is very hard. For most people, impossible. That includes 99% of the people reading this and thinking that they are in the 1% who rises above. You don't.
Re: (Score:3)
So ... you are saying there is really no hope for science as an objective study of truth?
Re: Emotions cloud objectivity, and you don't real (Score:4, Insightful)
No, we are talking about Wikipedia.
I've never seen anyone who is a science attacker ever advance even a remotely feasible or effective alternative. No, obviously faith in God isn't an alternative because faith doesn't teach you about the natural world - honest theologians admit that.
Re: (Score:2)
No, we are talking about Wikipedia.
I've never seen anyone who is a science attacker ever advance even a remotely feasible or effective alternative. No, obviously faith in God isn't an alternative because faith doesn't teach you about the natural world - honest theologians admit that.
Your whole premise of needing to defend science against attackers is an unscientific attack on the scientific process!
It replaces actual science with the dogma of whatever is currently believed by people with letters next to their names, but that isn't the scientific process at all.
It precludes science. But luckily, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a place that should not be trying to do anything scientific at all. Is there a way to get editors to stop trying? Dunno, but if so they haven't found it yet!
Re: (Score:2)
So ... you are saying there is really no hope for science as an objective study of truth?
I dunno what that person was saying, but to me it seems obvious that you don't get there by "voting" on disagreements on the talk page!
Just an example, if you look up a page about Foo-ism, instead of an encyclopedic description of the concept, you get Foo-ist statements right in the opening paragraph claiming that Fooism affects certain Foos more than others; whereas that distinction is itself actually the very definition of Fooism!
It seems obvious that you'd have a section on "Fooism in [geographic region]
Re: (Score:1)
No, that is really false. People who have scientific training or who have studied rhetoric are far more aware of logical fallacies in their own arguments. Maybe it is somewhat true for the general public, even though 99% still sounds like hyperbole.
Re: (Score:1)
Couldn't agree more, this is the folly of people being labeled as "biased" - everyone is biased, it's the human condition.
Anyone who claims to be objective merely lacks self awareness.
Re: (Score:2)
If we can't even agree about the facts of genital mutilation, what hope is there for consensus-based "objective" publications?
Re: (Score:2)
What a Bunch of Underachievers (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody who always uses vim is an idiot, just like anybody who always uses emacs is an idiot.
Emacs is painful on a remote terminal, and vim klunky and slow for software development. You need both to wear the *nix expert hat.
If you're a sysadmin who can't write their own tools, or a developer who needs a help desk to keep your desktop running, shut up you don't matter.
This message was approved by the BOFH.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No. You are wrong about that because Trump is the smartest person ever (so great, has the best words) and climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese. Build the wall!
Re: Sounds a lot like Slashdot (Score:2)
Fuck that, Bitcoin is going to dominate the future economy, making all that shit moot.
Re: (Score:2)
The Earth is FLAT!
Re: (Score:2)
Bull. Fucking. Shit. The Earth is FLAT!
No it isn't, Nazi.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Earth is FLAT!
Locally true, on average.
The blockchain is shaped like a tree, so if we want to make Earth immutable, we need a blockchain rooted at the Sun, and linking Earth to the outer bodies.
Re: (Score:2)
TRUUUUMMMP!!!
Also, you're wrong. I get the Discover magazine every month.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck that, Bitcoin is going to dominate the future economy, making all that shit moot.
Won't work, if you put the CO2 on the blockchain it becomes immutable.
Re: Sounds a lot like Slashdot (Score:1)
Do not wake the APK, for it is in slumber.
Proof that Wikipedia editors moonlight at Slashdot (Score:2)
Great summary, Brownie.
Wikpedia (Score:2)
People are very different, our knowledge if often extremely contentious (aside from hard science) - it's amazing Wikipedia exists in the first place.
Also, I bet neuroticism is not even at the top of contentious articles: politics/history/countries/events and famous people must attract even more opposing opinions. As if it wasn't enough we have conspiracy theories, "alien" sightings and abductions, "divine" interventions and all sorts of BS which people are keen to add to Wikipedia.
Re: (Score:2)
People are very different, our knowledge if often extremely contentious (aside from hard science) - it's amazing Wikipedia exists in the first place.
Worse, people compiling an encyclopedia shouldn't actually have any functional knowledge at all! If they accidentally make use of their knowledge, that's original research.
It isn't any better in hard science than anywhere else, either; actual science is a process, a process that includes diverse views including views that the current consensus rejects, but the encyclopedia prefers to endorse some views, and reject others, in an absolute way as if "hard science" doesn't evolve or change or have legit disagre
Re:Wikipedia (Score:2)
You are quite right - I didn't think about that. However I'd like to ask you, do you think it's possible to include all the conflicting opinions/views on a topic? What if there are too many? What if some are supported by a large group of people and others are in the minority?
What about historical events or even current events where there's little official information however rumors and theories are aplenty (mind with various sources)? What if the official information is doubted/rejected by pretty much eve
Re: (Score:2)
No, you can't do it perfectly. And it isn't useful to include all opinions. But it also isn't useful to deny that other opinions exist, or to declare them wrong.
But I don't think doing it by committee has shown itself to produce higher quality results, merely a larger volume of results that are updated more often. (as compared to a traditional encyclopedia)
IMO the highest quality encyclopedia would fork from wikipedia, freeze it in time, and then slowly improve the content with a small team of experts who a
Battle of the bored (Score:5, Informative)
It's been that way for a decade. I gave up trying to contribute long ago.
It's now a battleground, and the winners are the ones who are most persistent.
It's like a home owners association - the place is run by people with not enough to do, and a desire to control others.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Recently. I was editing a page on some car. I added some content to a section, and was going to add the references as they want, but before I got to the next section, I got some eager beaver who reverted my edit, and also edited out some pre-existing material, and then sent me a nasty-gram about not providing proper references! Then when I tried to explain, he threatened to ban be for "abusing" him.
It's a complete waste of time, don't even bother. Accuracy is random bec
Re:Battle of the bored (Score:5, Informative)
Isn't this just him rejecting your patch as incomplete? It's not like you are required to edit one section at a time. Why couldn't you just open the full page for editing and then copy your edit from the page history and add the references then submitted it all together? It sounds like you are complaining that someone else didn't want to keep track of your edits for you. Since your edit stays in the page history, that doesn't really seem so strange to just revert it until the citation is added with it. Nominally you saying you just haven't had time to add the citation makes in even less likely that someone would want to put on the "citation needed" tag. Since you have the citation on hand, it should just go on in or be left out.
This seems like the real problem with wikipedia, there is not such a good system for "proposing" edits without them going live. There are guidelines for handling this process, but my impression is that they are ad-hoc so they are not uniform among different topics.
Re: (Score:2)
This is hilarious. (Score:2, Funny)
there's a long-running edit war about the meaning of neuroticism.
Sometimes you don't even have to go out of your way to make the joke, it just falls right in your lap.
Re: (Score:2)
*It would lose all its charm if I explained it.
How was the road to hell paved again? (Score:3, Interesting)
The story basically confirms my experiences with Wikipedia. Nice idea, great intentions, and I even use it pretty often, but not worth trying to improve. Let me clarify that I'm an extremely infrequent contributor, mostly just asking questions and offering suggestion in Talk pages and most of my actual public contributions were just minor editorial corrections. Years ago I cared quite a bit more and fixed lots of grammar problems, but these days I just don't care and don't bother. (However I also think there are fewer low-level grammar problems these years.)
I'm trying to figure out the quickest explanation of how my attitude towards Wikipedia was flipped from mostly positive to mostly negative. Various minor things, but I think the recurring one might have been the spam. Not from Wikipedia, but from spammers using Wikipedia to boost the credibility of their scams, usually 419s.
In my twisted way of thinking this is a relatively minor problem (but with potential to become a more serious problem) with an obvious fix. Flag the targeted articles to defeat the spammers' intentions. I think that Wikipedia should notice spammer-related traffic or at least accept reports that an article is being used to support spam, and add a temporary alert to that article. Something like "Scam alert: If you came to this article because you are looking for evidence that Claude left you a million dollars, then you should know that it is just a 419 scam. Follow this link for more information on 419 scams and how to avoid them."
Maybe the suggestion is stupid, but I would say that "internal" consideration of the suggestion never rose to that level of incomprehension within Wikipedia. And I still think there is a significant risk of active vandalism if the spammers interpret Wikipedia's collective indifference in the wrong way.
Oh well. Too much time again. I bid you ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Re:How was the road to hell paved again? (Score:4, Interesting)
What drove me away from editing?
Being blocked by an administrator for the "crime" of reporting that a permanently banned user was editing again. Although I was eventually unblocked, there was no apology, no acknowledgement that my block was wrong.
Then, on top of that, some time later, I saw that same administrator being protected in an arbitration proceeding through shenanigans by other administrators (the arbitration proceeding against him was consolidated with a much more contentious and unrelated arbitration, leading to the arbitration against him being dropped).
Re: (Score:3)
Though that was only a secondary aspect of my comment, your reply does address the internal politics issues. I have seen some evidence of that cliquishness, too. However I tend to attribute a lot of that to Dunbar's Number. Seems appropriate to cite Wikipedia on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Actually reminds me of the only person I knew pretty well who used to be a honcho over at Wikipedia. But he also thinks that I'm a difficult person, as the joke goes. (He actually is famous enough to have his own
Re: (Score:2)
Funny I edited something and a admin reverted it. To get around the 3 revert rule he asked another editor publicly , can you revert this , I don't want to violate the 3 revert rule. Yep that is the wikipedia admins for you.
Would an ignore feature work? (Score:4, Insightful)
This would basically give Wikipedia users a vote on who they think are (not) making valuable contributions, shifting the incentive for editors from the current "he who edits last wins" to "he who satisfies the most readers wins."
Re:Would an ignore feature work? (Score:4, Informative)
> What they really need are a few judges who weigh the arguments and ...
Yes, for some (most?) topics that would work quite well !
i.e. If you have a PhD you get to judge the quality of accuracy.
For other topics who determines who gets to judge? Popularity probably isn't a good measuring stick on most cases except in the case of niche cases. For example, on the topic of multiplayer games you probably DO want to listen to YouTube streamers who constantly play and stream the game.
e.g. If you play Starcraft 2 you've probably watched PiG, Winter, etc streamers give tips & info.
Some topics are purely subjective and based on opinion -- there is no authority on the matter -- there is no way to reconcile differences. Although since that is the current way Wikipedia works right now so at least we would have *some* improvements.
Re:Would an ignore feature work? (Score:4, Informative)
Although I've known more than a few brilliant and competent PhDs, some of the most egregiously ignorant people I have ever known - not stupid, but instead purposely and proudly uninformed - also hold doctorates.
The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon; the paper certifying expertise does not grant or even prove it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a really good point.
Even among scholars opinions can and do vary widely. How and Who would we decide in those cases?
i.e. Correct me if I'm wrong but my impression is that the hard sciences tend to have the least variance while the soft sciences tend to have the most variance.
Re:Would an ignore feature work? (Score:4, Insightful)
I actually suggested something along these line a few months ago... Let me see if I can dig up the link... Ah yes, here it is:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik... [wikimedia.org]
Essentially my position is that you should know your sources at the human level. If not the actual author, then the reputation of the person who is pointing you at that author. If a liar wants me to look at something, then I should look carefully.
In keeping with the story, I think it got stuck in a "forever [where's the] beef" loop.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I can't think of a more brain-dead approach than dragging "reputation" into it!
Ideas weigh the same regardless of the speaker, and certainly regardless of what things the speaker has said in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
Drop me a line if you [97333] learn to read better. MUCH better.
As MEPR applies in your case, I would, given the option, possibly take the time to lower your reputation for politeness and thoughtfulness. It is conceivable that you might rate highly on some dimensions related to provoking thoughts, and in that case you might remain visible to me, but I'm betting you, being what you are, would pretty much be invisible and would not waste any more of my time.
Since there was nothing resembling a conversation or
Re: (Score:2)
You think I can't read, because I knew that it is logical fallacy to worry about who spoke an idea, when measuring its truth? That just makes you an idiot, shanen.
My reputation, by the way, is not relevant to that. Obviously.
The funny part is that, while you know you disagree with me about something, you're not really sure what it is. And your reading comprehension isn't even good enough for you to realize that your blind stab at insulting me was done utilizing the exact same logical fallacy that you didn't
Public masturbation of 97333 (Score:2)
Z^-1
Re:Public Derpiness (Score:2)
Oh, did I get my own personal troll? Awesome! lolz welcome to the internet, kiddo. But no, I won't do that for you. Find a cam boy.
Public masturbation of 97333 (Score:2)
Z^-2
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia is a hear-say site (Score:4, Insightful)
It's their policy not to publish anything that doesn't have outside sources. They do this to avoid any serious legal issues. Such outside sources can be of any variety from USENET postings (perhaps even facebook, twitter, etc..) to mainstream media articles.
What is most important is the fact that wikipedia is not any more reliable than their published sources. Today with so much fake news and in the bottomless pit published claims, Wikipedia should never be used for the primary or final source for anything, especially AI/Robotic projects such as Sophia.
I know of at least a couple cases where wikipedia articles are in fact, wrong, but they persist and insist with the errors.
Re: (Score:2)
Reality all newspapers should be removed at sources for non events.
Most of their editors got there ten years ago. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Fork it.
Equal time... (Score:2)
maybe some kind of equal time doctrine would be useful, with each article have a common controversies section, so that alternative views are at least documented even if it is on another tab.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but it adds nothing to point that out without also pointing out that under the current system, it would take 30 years to get Maxwell's Equations added, because they contradicted Newton.
The useful commentary nearest to what you said would involve looking at both sides of that equation, and identifying a purported balance point.
waste of time and energy (Score:3)
I tried to participate. It inevitably turned into a MMORPG, where primary attack/left click was bound to "You are not here to write an encyclopedia".
What is the problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
Bullies with admin powers, not "everyone can edit" (Score:1)
I had a disagreement about a page edit. It went back and forth in an edit war for a while and the discussion page ended with a user just obstinately refusing to change his position--and then threatening anybody with bans and deletions if they dared disagree again. He was clearly in a minority but he had moderator/admin access and used it to enforce his own views.
It's *NOT* an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" it's a webpage that a few elites with admin powers can bully to say what they want and everybod
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to fix the problem (Score:2)
The Irony (Score:2)
This is not news (Score:2)
Re: What do you expect? (Score:2)
The First Doctor does not run any country.
Re:Wikipedia = another NSA operation (Score:4, Insightful)
You're saying here that the NSA runs and controls Wikipedia because some people make edits that you find statist.
If you weren't a trolling coward, there would be many easy ways to show you are incorrect, but no anonymous commentator deserves such a courtesy.
Re: (Score:2)
Start by giving some proof to your extraordinary claims then.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed.
Re: Libtard meltdowns (Score:2)
Then here are some things you should never pay for: Cars, clothes, the Internet, chocolate, breakfast cereal, nuclear energy, solar energy, education, health, books, comics, aircraft/flights, computers, food containing grains, beer/wine/mead.
In fact, there's virtually nothing you can pay for. Those you object to invented it all.