Posted on 10/03/2019 7:32:57 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj
Have Absolutely Had It With Wikipedia's Nonsense & Tyrannical Editors
As someone who has been on Wikipedia for over 12 years, I've attempted on countless occasions to try to make my own contributions to the website. Besides correcting minor errors, my one main specialty was bringing up-to-date information on individual locations, going state by state. Meticulously researching census records, maps, online resources, etc. to try to improve said pages. It's a time-consuming endeavor, but I figure if it's helpful to others, perhaps a kid working on a research project, it's worth it.
Not anymore.
I'm sick to death of the blowback from attempting to "dare" improve the pages of individual communities. It was bad enough several years ago working on the state of Alabama (yeah, working in alphabetical order) only to have one editor summarily delete my contributions despite said research. I later moved on to working on Alaska, which was woefully out-of-date, and had not so much as a single thank you, but a snarky editor/mod who deleted and then made light of my contributions.
Then came this week. I was working on Arizona, and was slammed with a swarm of editors deleting everything I put into the articles, never mind I cited exactly what/where/when and how my research was done. Just removed and warned. I blew up (mildly) at two mods and told them if they wished to be of help, to go over the work/research line by line and locate what kind of "references" would satisfy their appetites. The final straw was trying to locate something as simple as an incorporation date for a particular city. Try as I might, I could not find the date anywhere online. I actually dared email the city manager who promptly replied and provided a pdf copy of the resolution from the '80s. I told her I would put the info on Wikipedia. It was removed THREE times and I was attacked for putting up "unsourced material." The last time was today. I was researching villages that were no longer in existence and had the temerity to change their designation to "ghost towns" and everything swiftly deleted by these same bullies this evening.
Y'know, I have absolutely had it with these power-hungry editor thugs who seem hell-bent on wanting to keep the place free from updated facts and hide behind "references" excuses and claiming "no original research permitted !" The whole damn website is FULL of original research or references to original research. Without it, there'd be no website of facts.
I would love to do this research and pages for another website that doesn't attack/criticize and remove it at the drop of a hat (and mind you, THIS ISN'T POLITICAL !), but I cannot seem to find one. Conservapedia barely exists and I'd have to create a page for every locale (and probably HTML, etc., which I'm not very good with), which would take eons to do. I'm just simply baffled otherwise. But I'm not going to toil one more second for a website that regards my meaningful contributions as a nuisance. Eff Wikipedia.
I don’t go there for anything vaguely political. But if you want to know when fax machines were invented, or what’s in a sloe gin fizz, they’re ok.
CC
A helpful editor would go line-by-line reviewing the stuff and trying to assist with citing resources. Nope. They can’t be bothered, so they simply delete it and ream you out with copy and paste warnings for not submitting work that passes THEIR personal muster to the last letter. They prefer to keep the pages false and out of date.
The Gatekeepers of Knowledge are offended. Go figure.
As for me, I am grateful for the fortitude and rectitude wherewith you approached the task. You should consider work as an investigative journalist . . . if you are ready to die.
Oh, I’m sure. I attempted to write an article long ago on a political figure who was a left-winger (just to test my skills in even-handed writing). THAT they liked.
That’s why I tend to stick to articles which tend to do with places, stuff I can verify.
Yup. I ought to be paid, but even if I was, I wouldn’t put up with this crap. I’d just collect the money and do nothing, because you have these punks sitting in wait to just pounce and delete with NO help.
Wikipedia is run by lefists.
Leftists hate truth.
Thank you.
Alas, changing a username wouldn’t work, because I’m the only one doing that type of specialized research for places and they’d know who it was.
Nobody else seems particularly interested, and the punks deleting it aren’t doing jack$hit to improve the pages - just babysitting them and waiting for someone to do an edit they can swiftly delete.
The jackass who went and deleted 6 of my edits (which took several hours to research) I demanded he review the lines and assist the edit with references that are “suitable to his liking.” Response so far ? Static. That would require actual work on his part rather than a single one-sentence reply and “undo” click.
You may be right. Here's one sentence in from the Wikipedia page on Hunter Biden:
Trump falsely told Zelensky that "[Joe] Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution" of his son; Joe Biden did not stop any prosecution, did not brag about doing so, and there is no evidence his son was ever under investigation.[42]Biden certainly did brag in his Council on Foreign Relations interview about getting the state prosecutor fired. That prosecutor was investigating Burisma, the company Hunter Biden worked for. After the prosecutor was fired, the investigation was dropped. By pretending that this scandal is about criminal wrongdoing by Hunter Biden while he was on Burisma's board, Wikipedia can be technically correct while conveying a lie.
That's very Snopes-like.
What you did was wonderful and they should have been thankful to you for your updates and contributions.
The people running the site must be crazy.
While it is supposed to be useful, I almost never go there, and from what you say, no great loss.
Thank you.
I tend to find many examples on the editors talk pages full of legitimate complaints from others along the same lines... “I meticulously researched this...” with the same canned reply, “NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH !” There are countless articles with original research. You have to engage in original research often in order to present factual and up-to-date information !
Someone clicking on one of the pages I edited (and had the work deleted) will make the presumption a particular locale exists because it was designated a “populated place” 50+ years ago on a USGS survey. I dare to confirm this or refute this (more refuting) with research and it doesn’t pass muster. I confirm a place is a ghost town, nothing left, or empty buildings with roofs caved in, via photographic evidence from recent pictures and checked against old maps/topos and aerial views from 50 years ago (which showed back then there were inhabitants and buildings), but they won’t accept it and won’t work with me to define acceptable reference materials.
Bookmark
If I was doing that kind of work at Wikipedia and was a real place to go to, they would’ve already snipered me.
That’s why I don’t touch those pages. They’re demonstrably false and outrageously fake. They like it that way to suit the fake narrative and cover up Derp Stater criminality.
Sorry to hear, it has the potential to be really great, but not under the present approach. I use it like any other source, as input that my own good brain assimilates.
Jackass just replied:
You need to learn how to source information. Look at WP:RS for a start. Then look at WP:CITE and WP:CIT for how to reference and footnote. Making statements like “...and can be classified as a ghost.” are nothing more than WP:OR and are forbidden on WP. You really have to learn WP guidelines and policies, and stop wasting productive editors’ time
Yup, I’m wasting this efftard’s time. He’s wasting MY time by not wanting these pages correct and updated. 12 years on this website and lectured to like a toddler.
What makes you think the mods at WIKI are anything other than pj boys sipping hot chocolate in their pad in grandmother’s attic?
I added a new album recently using nothing but public information: the album name; the track titles; the name of the band’s members; the runtime. Some power trip user put it in suspension and demanded sources. No thanks. On one of the band’s other albums, there is only one attribution, and it is along the lines of, “The band announced the album would be released on November 4, 2013.” with a link to an article about the announcement. I guarantee the useless statement was added just to appease such a power-tripper. I won’t do it.
How about devoting your skills to conservapedia?
They’re liberals but fair on historical stuff ( no politics )
Two of the f’ers just circlejerked themselves on the page:
Arizona settlements[edit]
Thanks for your edit to Achi, Arizona and other nearby settlements. I’ve been making several corrections to these same articles, and at Benson, Arizona, I have asked for an opinion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Magnolia677, first, thanks for all the work you do on WP, especially on AZ articles. Second, yes this particular editor does have a habit of adding uncited material to articles. I had to undo about a dozen or so edit of theirs yesterday. I also noticed the source used at Benson, and am glad you brought it up at WP:NORN. I’ll leave my thoughts on the issue there. Will be interested to see the outcome.Onel5969 TT me 16:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.