Sammy (is just a fox 🦊)Have you ever edited #Wikipedia? 
(Boost for some reach? 🥺)
Yes I have
No I haven't
Poll ended at .
13 barn owls in a trenchcoat@theresnotime Yes, but they almost always got reverted to something incorrect by someone who was guarding "their" entry, so I stopped.
@HauntedOwlbear urgh, that's annoying to hear, I'm sorry :/ could always be worth trying again some time (and letting me know if it happens!)
@theresnotime thanks! I'll serious consider it. It was a while ago that I last tried.
koberulz@HauntedOwlbear @theresnotime I added a match to the page for an upcoming WWE PPV after it was announced on an episode of SmackDown, which at the time aired in Australia before it aired in the US. It was reverted, because most Wikipedians are American and didn't like spoilers so they'd come up with a policy stating that the TV show itself was not a valid source for things that happened on it.
John Chivall@HauntedOwlbear @theresnotime Yeah, this is pretty much why I gave up contributing. I just wanted to create or update entries but there were too many people who would just delete or revert anything if it wasn't written by one of their buddies. Couldn't be bothered to play that game, so I stopped creating anything. That was well over a decade ago. Is the culture any better these days?
Chris Cunningham@johnchivall @HauntedOwlbear @theresnotime It never gets better, but through attrition you can eventually win out. I've been an admin for over ten years. On no less than three occasions I have cheered in real life when I found that an editor I know has died
@chriscunningham @HauntedOwlbear @theresnotime I just never had the patience. It shouldn't have to be that hard!
@johnchivall @HauntedOwlbear @theresnotime Planck's principle is nearly 75 years old, and this was also one of the better strategies for a millennium or so of european kingmanship, so I think it pretty much applies across the board. and those things have much higher barriers to entry