= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
fubarobfusco comments on HP:MoR: request for Reliable Sources - Less Wrong Discussion
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)
I agree. However, this discussion seems to be aimed at improving the quality of the contribution to Wikipedia — and secondarily at understanding what the Wikipedia community wants — and not at recruiting people to edit-war.
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.