You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–] [deleted] 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] gurlat 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I've tried correcting simple spelling and grammar mistakes. Things like "he was the the hedmaster".

My corrections were deleted in minutes with no explanation.

As you've said, people stake-out certain articles as their territory, and refuse to let others change them in any way. Even a minor change requires a full on internet discussion, and like most normal people, it's simply not worth 2 hours of my time to correct the spelling of one word on a Wikipedia article I don't give a shit about.

0
1

[–] CloudYeller 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I had the same issue with a bunch of grammar and spelling edits. The explanation I got from other editors (with super high edit counts) was this. (paraphrased)

Your edit was reverted because it counts as an "edit" for the person who reverted it. The higher your edit count the higher you are in the unofficial power structure of wikipedia. If your edit count gets high enough you can become an admin/mod and really start getting power over other users.

That was back in ~2005. I never tried to make another edit. I simply have better things to do with my time then to play these petty bullshit games.

0
0

[–] mort ago 

Do you have any examples of scientific wikipedia articles which present a one sided view, which you think is wrong?

0
2

[–] rwbj 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I'd assume he's likely referencing climate change given that this is Voat in spite of the the fact that there are two different pages that exclusively discuss, at length, climate change denial.

I've no love for Wikipedia, but I do think the scientific topics are still at least decent introductions to topics. They have barriers to entry in the form of knowledge so you generally avoid the low brow social media warriors taking over the pages.