[OC] Wikipedia Edits by Day, 2001–2010Submitted by ptgorman t3_11h22gl in dataisbeautiful
HiddenCity t1_jarjxw4 wrote
Reply to comment by fourdoorshack in [OC] Wikipedia Edits by Day, 2001–2010 by ptgorman
In 2007 you could still edit wikipedia really easily and that's when it started to get really big and started appearing at the top of every Google search.
When I was in high school we would change it on purpose for smaller things as a prank (one of our teachers had a page because they were published).
I remember in history class we would edit it to show how easy misinformation could get published on the internet.
They tightened it up after, so that's probably why the edit numbers went down.
snozzberrypatch t1_jas3rfv wrote
It's still really easy to edit Wikipedia, if you're actually being productive. If you just want to add "HAHA JOHNNY HAS A SMALL DICK" to an article, then yes, it's more difficult nowadays.
Sauce: am a Wikipedia admin
2ndAltAccountnumber3 t1_jates2w wrote
What if that's really relevant to Johnny's page?
Lost_Smoking_Snake t1_jatkt7c wrote
then it would need a citation
eddietwang t1_jaue184 wrote
ramblinginternetnerd t1_jatsho3 wrote
Do wiki admins have jobs as dog walkers or is that only reddit?
snozzberrypatch t1_jaulolv wrote
Can't speak for other admins, but I have a real job. I'm also not a particularly active admin anymore.
ramblinginternetnerd t1_jav7cvd wrote
Got job, became less active. Got it.
AtypicalSpaniard t1_jauxta8 wrote
Alternatively, you can be a student team at a university trying to get permission from a mod in Wikipedia to add a section to an article and get denied for six months. Our teacher had to give up on that exercise because no team got permission in the end, lol.
Source: am that student
snozzberrypatch t1_javajvf wrote
Better to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission. Just register an account and edit. As long as you're doing good work, no one will care.
chugga_fan t1_jauiijr wrote
> It's still really easy to edit Wikipedia, if you're actually being productive
The abundance of pagesquatting with admin support absolutely proves that this notion is counterfactual.
snozzberrypatch t1_jaum02r wrote
I disagree. If you've got sources to back up what you're trying to add, and you're not trying to push some kind of agenda, then it's quite easy to add whatever content you want, even if other editors don't like your content for whatever reason. Wikipedia is about documenting knowledge, not righting great wrongs or painting your favorite politician in the best light possible.
chugga_fan t1_jaura4w wrote
> then it's quite easy to add whatever content you want, even if other editors don't like your content for whatever reason.
Ryulong only got banned after page squatting for quite some time and pissing off a gigantic amount of people.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939
Entire pages have been pagesquatted by people who have intrinsic bias about the incident since the people in question are unfavorable if the other side is true...
T.D Adler was banned for pointed out admin CoI.
Political Commentators are accused of harassment for being harassed on some pages.
If it isn't left-wing it's instantly overthrown from the reasonable scale if it's at all political.
snozzberrypatch t1_jausb3s wrote
>If it isn't left-wing it's instantly overthrown from the reasonable scale if it's at all political.
There it is. You don't like Wikipedia because it doesn't let you push your agenda. I typically stay far away from political articles, partly because I don't buy into political theater, and partly because I'm not attracted to drama. With that said... considering how much disinformation, brainwashing, and propaganda has been generated by the American right wing in the last decade or so, it's no surprise that a right winger such as yourself would feel frustrated, since all of your media sources aren't considered reliable (and rightly so) and many of your closely-held beliefs are probably dismissed as nonsense by many other editors.
It may be true that Wikipedia has a slight left wing bias, mostly owing to the fact that writing encyclopedia articles is a scholarly pursuit and therefore WP editors tend to be educated (and left wing folks are statically more likely to be highly educated than right wing folks), but my guess is that any actual bias on WP is a lot less than what someone in your position perceives it as.
chugga_fan t1_jaussu8 wrote
> There it is. You don't like Wikipedia because it doesn't let you push your agenda
Brother I gave you fucking examples of actual human beings who did nothing wrong and got banned for it.
Get your head outside the board's behinds and see the truth of the matter that there is actual research into the bias of wikipedia and its overreliance of dubious quality secondary sources whose bias is well known to be genuinely awful.
The Guardian is not a news source that is at all neutral. Huffington Post is even worse. CNN and Fox News are decent. MSNBC is a shitshow with occasional news. So why the fuck are the first two even accepted as a reliable source? You don't fucking accept OANN, so why the fuck are the dumpster fires of the left wing accepted?
It's because you unironically cannot see your own bias.
> considering how much disinformation, brainwashing, and propaganda has been generated by the American right wing in the last decade
There's exactly one popular right wing news network in the United States, you genuinely have no idea what you're talking about.
snozzberrypatch t1_jauwlb4 wrote
Lmao you're putting MSNBC and HuffPost in the same category as OANN? Sorry, but you're a fucking moron. Hopelessly brainwashed by the propaganda.
Do MSNBC and HuffPost have a bias? Sure. But at least they don't report conspiracy theories as is they're facts. There's a difference between having a partisan bias that colors your reporting, and reporting blatant falsehoods about how the election was stolen and Trump is still the president.
Get a grip dude. You're blinded by the brainwashing.
chugga_fan t1_jaw0yo2 wrote
> Lmao you're putting MSNBC and HuffPost in the same category as OANN?
MSNBC is occasionally good.
Huffington post at best is a glorified opinion piece.
Get your head out of the sand and fucking see the world for what it is.
"I don't have my head in the sand" - Man who says the Huffington Post is accurate reporting.
I do love how you don't even bother with the fact that I mention the Gaurdian, which is OBJECTIVELY a worse version of the Huffington Post.
snozzberrypatch t1_jaw33q4 wrote
Keep watching OANN dude. The ultimate source for all of your confirmation bias needs.
You can mention all the news sources you want, the fact is there is nothing on the left that is even remotely equivalent to something like OANN, at least not that I'm aware of, or if it does exist it's on the extreme fringe and doesn't attract a lot of viewers. You people treat OANN like it's fuckin Reuters. Pretty sad.
chugga_fan t1_jaw3t45 wrote
> Keep watching OANN dude.
I don't watch news media because it's all garbage takes from CNN and Fox News to The Gaurdian and OANN.
All of it's trash yellow journalism disguised as information on the ground.
Find a local reliable outlet and read the print section occasionally and take it with a fucking grain of salt.
> Thinking I give a flying fuck about OANN
I use them as the case of being an extreme right-wing bias, why the FUCK do you think I think it's neutral btw? Why the hell are the only people arguing about this with me unable to parse an english sentence?
SSG_SSG_BloodMoon t1_javyb5q wrote
> Brother I gave you fucking examples of actual human beings who did nothing wrong and got banned for it.
You gave one example and it literally wasn't a parsable English sentence. So you gave zero examples.
chugga_fan t1_jaw0sfn wrote
> You gave one example and it literally wasn't a parsable English sentence. So you gave zero examples.
T.D Adler, Ryulong, Carl Benjamin's page where he's accused of harassment despite direct video evidence proving to the contrary (again the secondary sources bias). The entire scientific journal on how the holocaust pages are biased in favor of forgetting polish crimes.
"One example"
SSG_SSG_BloodMoon t1_jaw3cdv wrote
Are you now saying that "ryulong" did nothing wrong? Thought you were saying the opposite.
This is the first time you've mentioned the third person.
So yeah... Literally actually one example
chugga_fan t1_jaw3ho0 wrote
I only passingly mention Carl, T.D Adler did nothing wrong for calling out CoI on admins. Ryulong is a pagesquatter who still fundamentally shapes that page to this day.
You are actually just illiterate.
SSG_SSG_BloodMoon t1_jaw4l22 wrote
I'm illiterate huh. Interesting. So count for me, how many examples of:
> actual human beings who did nothing wrong and got banned for it.
, which is the thing I quoted and replied to, had you given.
Hint: it's one.
PhxRising29 t1_jax37bj wrote
What does pagesquatting mean?
chugga_fan t1_jax3dna wrote
Pagesquatting is effectively a single user controlling an entire page, with the ability to revert edits and prevent anyone else from editing the page. There are numerous political examples of pagesquatting.
okwaitno t1_jaxjvxm wrote
Unfortunately not my experience. I have wasted hours on mid-level pages that I have expert knowledge about, making detailed, thoughtful changes that were immediately reverted back. As a result I have simply given up. I have spoken to others in same situation. Mod communication is a nightmare, they seem to rule with iron fist. I can only believe the platform is poorer for it.
snozzberrypatch t1_jaycq1i wrote
What general topic do you have expert knowledge about, just out of curiosity?
okwaitno t1_jazc1oe wrote
Sorry but I prefer not to share that, as it will then be clear which pages I am referring to. And my level of knowledge is not visible to a mod anyway. They make decisions on their own terms irregardless. I’m sure you are aware of these issues, it’s hardly a new thing. Wikipedia ceased to be easy to edit long ago.
snozzberrypatch t1_jb0an83 wrote
Sure, that's totally understandable. However, in over a decade of editing Wikipedia, I've never ever ever heard someone refer to a WP admin as a "mod". Wikipedia does not have moderators. The purpose of an admin is not to moderate or review the content that is being written. In fact, when it comes to pure content decisions, the opinion of an admin is not given any more weight than anyone else's opinion.
If you've edited there for as long as you said, you'd probably know all of that already. So, not that it matters, but I kinda think you're not really a regular contributor.
okwaitno t1_jb30333 wrote
Correct, I’m not a regular contributor anymore, and haven’t been for years, for the reasons outlined.
Technically true yes the title is admin not mod, perhaps I have grown accustomed to Redditspeak. Although on reflection, there is little actual difference. If a Wiki admin rejects edits that you spent hours crafting, you have little recourse. You may argue the semantics, but at the end of the day, what they say goes.
I tried to discuss multiple times when fair edits were rejected, and was never, ever successful. So like many, I just gave up.
Enjoy your power. I’ve found more meaningful ways for me to contribute to society.
kalesaji t1_jav8j80 wrote
Bro just casually dropped the wiki admin info. Leave some pussy for the rest of us king
snozzberrypatch t1_javsbhc wrote
There's enough for everyone. I'm sure you could become a Reddit mod when you grow up if you study hard and eat your vegetables.
kupuwhakawhiti t1_jav1828 wrote
Ah that makes sense. That’s when, according to Wikipedia, Piccolo is a bitch ass n***** from Namek.
Haven’t seen a funny edit like that since
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments