Talking with Wikipedia's moderators

[asarch]

Acordingly with this post of mine:

Linspire OS
Where can I sent a comment to the moderator of the Slackware's entry in the Wikipedia?

That's because they remove the classic statement:

When you know Red Hat Linux you only know Red Hat Linux but when you know Slackware you know Linux

[Icarus]

Add a user and edit it back in? There should be links to report things like that also.
Personally I can't stand Wiki's and think they are way over rated :)

[bwkaz]

Wikipedia has no "moderators". Anyone can add or remove anything they want. It's not that some specific "moderator" removed your comment, it's that some other random person didn't like it, so they removed it.

(This is why I don't like Wikis either -- at least not the well-known ones. It's not the correct information that ends up on the page, it's the information that was added by the most persistent person -- the person that came back and re-added (or re-deleted) it, even after several hundred rounds of an edit war.)

Sigh.

At least with the Linux kernel, there's a barrier to getting your code in: It has to work, and it has to be "good" (security-wise, code-style-wise, etc., etc.). With most Wikis, there's no barrier at all.

[asarch]

But theres must be rules about how to "post" an entry to the Wikipedia, you cannot simply add "an evil empire with low quality software" to the Microsoft's entry, right? :D

[retsaw]

Actually, I think you could, but it is probably against their editing guidelines and it probably wouldn't stay there long.

[bwkaz]

Yes, you can do that if you want, but the next person to read that will revert your edit with a comment of "revert vandalism".

And if you check back to the Microsoft article perhaps 3 hours after you add your comment, you'll see that it's gone. You can then re-add it, and eventually get into an edit war with whoever's removing it. (Or with multiple people who are removing it.) If you're more persistent than them, they'll eventually give up, and your version will stay, at least until the next person sees it that doesn't like it.

However, I would not recommend doing this. It's bad enough as it is; don't make it any worse.

[asarch]

Yes, you can do that if you want, but the next person to read that will revert your edit with a comment of "revert vandalism".

And if you check back to the Microsoft article perhaps 3 hours after you add your comment, you'll see that it's gone. You can then re-add it, and eventually get into an edit war with whoever's removing it. (Or with multiple people who are removing it.) If you're more persistent than them, they'll eventually give up, and your version will stay, at least until the next person sees it that doesn't like it.

However, I would not recommend doing this. It's bad enough as it is; don't make it any worse.I was just kidding about Microsoft's entry. :D

Anyway, I asked this because somebody removes the classic Slackware's statement:


When you know Red Hat Linux you only know Red Hat Linux but when you know Slackware you know Linux.
And I *REALY* want he/she put it back. :cool:

[retsaw]

But that statement is just opinion and not fact. Check with the Wikipedia edit guidelines, but I don't think it is the sort of statement that should be included, but if you word it so it is clear that it is just what some people beleive it might be okay.

[bazoukas]

I fooled around with the MS info in wiki and added few lines here and there such as "small man syndrome complex", "evil overloard". Did the same with G.Bush page.
I got my IP addy banned for few days.

Didnt do it again though. I just wanted to see what would happen. Very rare are the moments where I go at wikipedia and even then I stay for few min and leave.

[bwkaz]

And I *REALY* want he/she put it back. Not going to happen. If you want it there, you have to put it back yourself. And be prepared for someone else who doesn't agree with it to remove it again.

This is called "anarchy", and it's the state of most Wikis.

[Parcival]

This is called "anarchy", and it's the state of most Wikis.

Yet Wikipedia is surprisingly good. For my finals in US history I had the choiuce to look up the US presidents biographies either in my books or in Wikipedia. Wikipedia was just as accurate as the books and a lot faster to search. ;) I passed that exam with the highest possible mark, BTW. :D

[bwkaz]

Oh, I don't deny that it's good -- in some areas, at least. Technical information (i.e. history of computers, how some stuff works, etc.) is very accurate. (In fact, someone recently ran a study on Wikipedia versus a paper encyclopedia, where they had people find errors in both. The error-finders said that the articles that came from Wikipedia had just as many "major" errors in them as the encyclopedia, but more "minor" errors (however those were delineated).)

In areas where opinions vary widely, though, you'll get mediocre information at best, because you'll get the information that the last person put there.

It also helps to remember that Wikipedia is not a primary source. Yes, it is more convenient, but you should always confirm the information that's shown there via other sources.

[bburton]

My advice for you Asarch is to add an entry to the "talk" page for the Slackware article. Be sure to phrase it well, and make a good argument for why you believe that the statement should be included in the article. Visit the #wikipedia channel on IRC. Contact the main editors of the page; make a case.

If you feel strongely about this, then put forth the effort. You probably can get it added, as a slogan.

I fooled around with the MS info in wiki and added few lines here and there such as "small man syndrome complex", "evil overloard". Did the same with G.Bush page.
I got my IP addy banned for few days.
That serves you right. What you did is childish vandalism. I won't say much more on it except that admitting (bragging about?) it here does not reflect positively on your character.

[bazoukas]

My advice for you Asarch is to add an entry to the "talk" page for the Slackware article. Be sure to phrase it well, and make a good argument for why you believe that the statement should be included in the article. Visit the #wikipedia channel on IRC. Contact the main editors of the page; make a case.

If you feel strongely about this, then put forth the effort. You probably can get it added, as a slogan.


That serves you right. What you did is childish vandalism. I won't say much more on it except that admitting (bragging about?) it here does not reflect positively on your character.


What can I say. I am devestated dad or should I add the word saint in front your name.

Is this going to be a massive lynch now? Let me know so I will get my pop corn.

My little sentences were over the top silly statements (not vulgar) just to see how fast they will pick it up.

I didnt claim to be the brightest thing to do. I rate my action when it comes to creativity with zero but I was just too tempted to see how well they monitor those pages since I have no trust what so ever in obtaining info from a wiki.



The sources and the people in it do not have SOLID references to verify what they say.

- Do the authors put their name down along with their credentials??? I have yet to see it.


I will say this though, they do monitor high traffic pages very tightly.

Wikipedia is a hit and miss. You may get some info that is correct but it is a gamble.

Get off your high horse now and have some pop corn ................dad.

[Icarus]

bazoukas, that wasn't called for

so on that note, this topic is finished :D