Algeria - Roman history erased Options

[Emperor]

Anything can be fixed, even if it means starting again. In any case, in this instance I was just talking about the article.

But basically what you are saying is that you just want to whinge as that's far easier than actually fixing the problem, ie just get someone else to do it.

[Web Fred]

Anything can be fixed, even if it means starting again. In any case, in this instance I was just talking about the article.

But basically what you are saying is that you just want to whinge as that's far easier than actually fixing the problem, ie just get someone else to do it.

I take that to mean that you have no serious answer. Fair enough, we can't all have IQs above 90.

[Mister Die]

If the Great Soviet Encyclopedia can mention the Roman period and even give attention to Christianity, and this fact can go unchanged for decades (since it's obviously true and written by a Soviet historian in an encyclopedia that only academicians were allowed to edit after careful discussions, etc.), then how can you call Wikipedia a "work in progress" unless that means constantly knocking things down and leaving them to rot for extended periods of time before some random person goes and makes them better again, to be once more given the possibility of being knocked down, etc.?

It's pretty bad that GSE articles on a lot of topics, leaving aside obvious ideological biases, tend to be better-written and at times even more informative than their Wikipedia counterparts.

Here's the entire Soviet article on Algeria: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Algeria (scroll down a bit to get to it)

This post has been edited by Mister Die: Sat 31st March 2012, 12:11am

[Web Fred]

If the Great Soviet Encyclopedia can mention the Roman period and even give attention to Christianity, and this fact can go unchanged for decades (since it's obviously true and written by a Soviet historian in an encyclopedia that only academicians were allowed to edit after careful discussions, etc.), then how can you call Wikipedia a "work in progress" unless that means constantly knocking things down and leaving them to rot for extended periods of time before some random person goes and makes them better again, to be once more given the possibility of being knocked down, etc.?

It's pretty bad that GSE articles on a lot of topics, leaving aside obvious ideological biases, tend to be better-written and at times even more informative than their Wikipedia counterparts.

Here's the entire Soviet article on Algeria: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Algeria (scroll down a bit to get to it)

A "work in progress" means that it simply hasn't been written yet. Possibly because people who know the facts share the same disposition as Emperor and just can't be arsed, or as you say, some random person hasn't come along yet.

Has it occurred to anyone, even those who can't be arsed to edit the actual article, to mention this fact on the article's talkpage? Thereby highlighting the fact that there's a big chunk missing in a place it will be noticed, rather than on a critique site that's currently in the throes of a transformation.

[Mister Die]

Has it occurred to anyone, even those who can't be arsed to edit the actual article, to mention this fact on the article's talkpage? Thereby highlighting the fact that there's a big chunk missing in a place it will be noticed, rather than on a critique site that's currently in the throes of a transformation.

It'll result in either one of these two things:

1. "No, you imperialist neo-colonialist Eurocentrist Christian swine." (Which it seems is what Emperor fears)
2. "SOFIXIT"

[Web Fred]

Has it occurred to anyone, even those who can't be arsed to edit the actual article, to mention this fact on the article's talkpage? Thereby highlighting the fact that there's a big chunk missing in a place it will be noticed, rather than on a critique site that's currently in the throes of a transformation.

It'll result in either one of these two things:

1. "No, you imperialist neo-colonialist Eurocentrist Christian swine." (Which it seems is what Emperor fears)

Ah, so you're one of those people who won't try new things due to fear?

2. "SOFIXIT"

So you're part of the problem then?

[Mister Die]

I'm not an expert on Algerian history, and even if I was it'd still be quite easy to be defeated on Wikipedia because two or more guys got together to keep what should exist on the article blotted out.

If I can face needless bureaucratic ridiculousness for something as mundane as the character of an Albanian election, and lose despite a combination of logic and various sources, just because no one bothered to vote, why would I want to go into an endless debate over something that:

A. Isn't my focus;
B. Isn't something I actually know much about?

The fact is that articles can become better, but it's more likely that articles become worse over time. This is especially true for important articles (Algeria being one of them) which tons of people are going to look to for information first and foremost.

Not to mention that you'd be hard-pressed to find actual experts on Algerian history willing to edit the article.

This post has been edited by Mister Die: Sat 31st March 2012, 8:40am

[Web Fred]

I'm not an expert on Algerian history, and even if I was it'd still be quite easy to be defeated on Wikipedia because two or more guys got together to keep what should exist on the article blotted out.

If I can face needless bureaucratic ridiculousness for something as mundane as the character of an Albanian election, and lose despite a combination of logic and various sources, just because no one bothered to vote, why would I want to go into an endless debate over something that:

A. Isn't my focus;
B. Isn't something I actually know much about?

The fact is that articles can become better, but it's more likely that articles become worse over time. This is especially true for important articles (Algeria being one of them) which tons of people are going to look to for information first and foremost.

Not to mention that you'd be hard-pressed to find actual experts on Algerian history willing to edit the article.

Please don't forget that my above comments were regarding leaving a post on the article's talkpage, and not about editing the article directly.

You don't need to be an expert to be able to leave a message like that.

[Mister Die]

Yet what will it solve? I'll either be told to go "fix it" or be attacked, and obviously few readers are going to look into the talkpage and go "gee, thanks for the heads up that the article on Algeria is missing an important part of its history."

This post has been edited by Mister Die: Sat 31st March 2012, 9:05am

[Web Fred]

Yet what will it solve? I'll either be told to go "fix it" or be attacked, and obviously few readers are going to look into the talkpage and go "gee, thanks for the heads up that the article on Algeria is missing an important part of its history."

But by not doing it it is assured of failure. If a message is left then at least there's a chance.

Methinks you are a 'cup is half empty' sort of guy.

[Mister Die]

Alternatively one could use that time for better things.

This post has been edited by Mister Die: Sat 31st March 2012, 10:06am

[Web Fred]

Alternatively one could use that time for better things.

Like going on a review site and criticising something?

[Mister Die]

At least that's amusing.