Sisyphus Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 I've become somewhat addicted to improving Wikipedia over the last few months, and now have several hundred edit records on my account and have created a handful of new articles. Anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 On occasion, when I feel like it. It seems to come in bursts, especially when I get irritated by the grammar in some of the articles. But mostly I just read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 I've created some articles, and edit things when I run into things to edit. I don't spend that much time there, though, simply because I don't have the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MolotovCocktail Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 I'm thinking about making an account over there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timo Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 I remember having edited some terribly-written advertizing article about a science forum some time ago. Wrote two articles for the german version, made a few edits (as an IP) on the english one. What I find interesting is the very wide range of competence encountered on WP (that includes feedback by people who have no a-priori knowledge about the topic at hand). What I dislike are amateurs trying to contribute directly to topics they don´t have a clue about ("I have rewritten the introduction such that it´s easier to understand" on the cost of the introduction now being wrong) and page-long pointless discussions which only become so long because many people feel they can contribute to the topic ("We need a WP standard: Should we denote vectors with arrows or with fat letters?"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 I've edited one article; removed an incorrect statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 I leave comments complaining, but I rarely do anything to fix it. hah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genecks Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 On occasion, when I feel like it. It seems to come in bursts, especially when I get irritated by the grammar in some of the articles. But mostly I just read it. Agreed. When Wikipedia was first starting, I would edit things left and right. However, the community has grown, and I don't have to do as much as I once did. Therefore, I sit on the sidelines and fix grammar when it annoys me. The other thing that has been annoying me is when people tell me how to do things on Wikipedia. I think to myself, "I've been active over 4 years. STFU." Yeah, they don't like that attitude of mine. I try filling a hole with a new article, and they instantly want it deleted if it's not "good enough." Back in the day, they would keep it if it simply filled the hole. These days they want sources and everything else. Ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MolotovCocktail Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 These days they want sources and everything else. Ugh. Well, its a free encyclopedia that any idiot can edit, what do you expect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tauridtrain* Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Well, its a free encyclopedia that any idiot can edit, what do you expect? ZING! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm i dont make adjustments, but im a huge fan of it. it's not research in a can, but its proven to be a good first stop just to overview and browse by hyperlinks for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 361 edits here... yay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDarwin Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 I'm stuck at my mother's school with a crappy computer a lot, so I'll edit when I'm there. I've never tried making an article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredrik Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 Well, its a free encyclopedia that any idiot can edit, what do you expect? I don't see that as something invalidates the good sides though. There are "idiots" everywhere, free or not. It might even be a good lesson for us to not believe" everything we read, even though it's expensive or the author claims to be some authority. For anyone who wants real understanding I'd take it as a suggestion only, and try to verify it and the idiots will often sort themselves out quickly. Anyone who considers themselves incapable of making some sort of basic evaluation of the information, is probably dangerous to themselves to start with and have to learn the hard way. I've just added details on some topics that was wery thin or nonexistent, but from what I remember mostly on the swedish wikipedia. /Fredrik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MolotovCocktail Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 I know that... I was just making a joke about it. I know that wikipedia isn't all bad, but the fact that people who don't know anything about the subject at hand do degrade the quality of the articles on there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted April 4, 2007 Share Posted April 4, 2007 The other thing that has been annoying me is when people tell me how to do things on Wikipedia. I think to myself, "I've been active over 4 years.. Since when has tenure equated to expert. These days they want sources and everything else. Ugh. That's a bad thing because... I've never edited or added a wikipedia entry, because A. I don't feel I'm qualified yet to be making entries on an encyclopedia that's available to anyone with internet access, well not in the categories I'm interested in, and B. I'm too busy for correcting entries et.c as long as the info is correct, the rest is rather trivial IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the tree Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 361 edits here... yay!How do you get a count of how many edits you've made? I'm sure I've made at least that many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted April 8, 2007 Share Posted April 8, 2007 How do you get a count of how many edits you've made? I'm sure I've made at least that many. Tools like AutoWikiBrowser make this a lot easier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 I improved an article one time (and I do mean improved), and the guy who wrote the section I edited must have had it on his watch list because he came back and restored it, leaving a snotty comment on the changelog. I couldn't be arsed after that. Oddly enough this weekend I have been going through a particular set of pages and noticed all sorts of factual errors, ignored conventions, and so on. I was going to correct them, then thought "actually no - I am putting together a competing resource and with all these errors on Wikipedia, mine is better." So there you go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted April 10, 2007 Author Share Posted April 10, 2007 What competing resource? And, incidentally, with regard to those errors, you must remember that it is perpetually a work in progress. There will be errors. And there is nothing to stop anyone from making it worse, intentionally or not. But there is a steady trend towards progress, because the positive forces far outnumber the negative. Experts contribute, consensus is built, stable versions emerge. Errors are usually reverted quickly, and corrections almost never revert. When they do, it can be worked out in discussion. It's basically impossible to build and maintain a consensus about something which is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GutZ Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 The best way I can server humanity, especially in this case is to say the hell away. People like me are the ones who gives wikipedia a bad name. "A boson is a very large animal....." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 What competing resource? Should have "it" finished this weekend so expect bloggage (And by competing resource, I don't mean competing with Wikipedia as a product, I just mean that I am providing better info than them about a certain subject, so don't get too excited!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 ZING! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm i dont make adjustments, but im a huge fan of it. it's not research in a can, but its proven to be a good first stop just to overview and browse by hyperlinks for me. I still thinkt that only means that the Encyclopedia Britannica is, despite its name, not very good either. Mostly I only correct gross errors in Wikipedia, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now