The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> General Discussion? What's that all about?

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

Akahele.orgWikipedia-WatchWikitruthWP:ANWikiEN-L/Foundation-L (mailing lists) • Citizendium forums

Reply to this topicStart new topic
> How to win a wikipedia ridiculous edit war - post the article here
post Mon 9th December 2013, 12:55pm
Post #1

Junior Member

Group: Contributors
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue 20th Nov 2007, 12:53pm
Member No.: 3,898

Has anyone tried this. You have seen an article "owned" by one editor or a group of editors close to the article subject matter? You try to edit the article but get hit but the "consensus" line and they throw up all sorts of Wikipedia rules and procedures to block your way. Go any further no matter how valid your argument is and you will get reported to the administrators noticeboard. If reported the Admins (most) when called in, usually take the lazy line and blame the dissenting editor for trouble making and you will get a black mark. What do you do? You need allies, there are a few well meaning Wikipedia admins here. So you post the article here illustrating its faults. I've done it a few times, and by doing so I've had the article deleted as I've alerted an Administrator who seemed to have the Wikipedia influence to override and make change.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Tue 10th December 2013, 8:14pm
Post #2

Senior Member

Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun 1st Nov 2009, 3:08pm
Member No.: 15,107

You could just edit a scarcely viewed page of scarce importance (depending on who you ask) and then you would notice how it remains unchanged in time, with all the correct or incorrect data entered.
Either way, the players on the site, whichever side they are on, tend to enjoy the fights. But the outside reader doesn't even know what is going on, and he may read incorrect data, which may or may not be of consequence to them.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Fri 20th December 2013, 8:04am
Post #3

Londoner born and bred

Group: Contributors
Posts: 263
Joined: Wed 7th Dec 2011, 1:16pm
From: London
Member No.: 71,989

WP user page - talk
check - contribs

Idiots seem to think Wikipedia is edited by experts, or at least checked properly. Fact is, admins don't always have loads of free time and of course are not experts themselves in more than one or two areas. So they have neither the time nor knowledge to sort out who's the good guy and who's the fuckwit. They make a quick guess; sometimes they're right but - surprise, surprise - often they're wrong.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th 2 18, 4:05am