= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jonathan_Graehl comments on HP:MoR: request for Reliable Sources - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (23)
True. The post as it stands now doesn't even suggest the possibility. And the discussion doesn't contain a whiff of battle planning; only suggestions for improvement.
Of course it doesn't suggest the possibility. I've been on Wikipedia since 2004 and have done a great deal of editing, so I know enough to avoid rookie mistakes. (As an administrator, I personally had to deal with the occasional outside recruitment problem.)
Quite deliberately, I didn't post this as a request for meat puppets - that would be counterproductive since someone would alert the editor involved (as has apparently happened), and would not help me very much.
Rather, I need either different versions of the content (as JoshuaZ has done) or new content.
I didn't know you used to be an admin!
I've never even had the heart to stick around and see if my occasional edits were reverted.
I don't blame you. The cost-benefit of contributing to Wikipedia has plummeted drastically over the past 5 years.
My feeling is that now, pretty much the only time it's worth contributing to Wikipedia these days is when your edit is only an external link or a direct quote+citation. (And this is more true the more popular an article is.) That's one reason I spend more time on my own website than Wikipedia articles; I'm not building on quicksand there.