Have you ever edited #Wikipedia

(Boost for some reach? πŸ₯Ί)

Yes I have
59%
No I haven't
41%
Poll ended at .
@theresnotime I have corrected some entry on an lgbt list about a character that was wrongly claimed to be a femboy, although only using she/her the entire movie and all the ppl around her only refering to her as a woman, there was just one scene were it was noted that she got different parts
@MiaWinter god that sort of topic often descends into edit warring over the silliest stuff.. πŸ₯΄
@theresnotime @MiaWinter is the show worth mentioning&watching?
@efi @theresnotime the one I edited?
@efi @theresnotime well, if you like iseka anime (or to be presicely, parodies of such) and don't mind a little fanservice (par for the course when making fun of isekai) konosuba is really fun, and the person it talked about is the villain in the movie, so there is one scene that can be seen a bit transphobic, but it's bc the main character is an asshole and it's just used as another scene to make him look like an asshole, since every single other person is never transphobic to her

@theresnotime @MiaWinter

Speaking of. I tried to edit an old version of the website for this international research organization I write news on, when I saw it had an outdated logo from 2010 or so. Nobody had updated anything (they are all scientific researchers in solar techs, probably don't care about wikipedia)and Wikipedia had a notice on it, saying "Hey, lovely onlooker, won't please

@theresnotime @MiaWinter
...kindly update this sad old thing" and I blundered into it saying yes I know quite a bit about this topic as I've interviewed most of these guys gone to their conferences and so on.

They came down on me like a ton a bricks! "How dare you shill for your little blog!!!" (This international org is under the IEA...) You are blocked for eternity!!!"

and so the site is gone and "you may never darken our door again!!"

@SusanKraemer @theresnotime @MiaWinter urk, that sucks. Wish I could say I've not heard this story before.
@MiaWinter @theresnotime I once tried to replace Elliot page’s deadname with their real name on the pages of all the things they were an actor in on German Wikipedia, my edits were quickly undone and some wikipedia dudebros were angry at me for it, so I gave up
@enby_of_the_apocalypse @theresnotime yea, german wikipedia has a huge bigot and nazi problem, it is nearly impossible editing stuff there
@theresnotime I cannot lie, I've touched a few minor things anonymously
@theresnotime 100% votes, wikieditors sweep
Edit: welp that fell
@theresnotime also wiki confessions i once got an entire sub block for my isp banned from editing because when i was little my sisters pestered me with soy luna or miraculous (dont remember) and i got mad and attempted multiple times to nuke the wiki page, got around the ban by power cycling the router
@theresnotime The only edits I really made were correcting some chemical formulae on wiki pages of minerals. Sometimes I feel like I should get more involved in editing Wikipedia, though.
@theresnotime My one Wikipedia claim to fame is editing a small error in the address calculation of an instruction for an obscure CPU
@serxka for real, edits like that are *so useful* β€” small errors tend to go unnoticed, especially in niche/techy areas!

@theresnotime it took me a bit of time to realize that "edit" means more than just "fix typos and obvious incorrect/outdated information". I've had it similarly with open source, but it took me less time.

but yeah, realizing that even stuff like "this language version does not indicate she's a corrupt [redacted]" is something I *can* and even *should* fix *myself*, kinda blew my mind

@selfisekai I'd personally say fixing typos and obvious incorrect information is as much "editing" as anything else :3
@theresnotime Someone was *wrong* on the internet. I had to issue a correction 
@freya (inb4 that's all Wikipedia editors are... people who like to correct folx on the internet πŸ˜…)
@theresnotime Only to fix obvious minor grammar errors/typos, I don't have an account πŸ™ˆ
@theresnotime I'm not ashamed to say I had a ton of edits in Animal Planet's Wikipedia page to correct and add show information 😳🀭
@theresnotime I think I edited about two words into an article once, they probably got edited back within minutes.
@confusedbunny aw I'd hope not, as long as it was constructive :3
@theresnotime I have a feeling it got edited back and I changed it again because I knew I was right. So long ago now, can't remember what so can't go and check on it!
@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.
@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.
@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?
@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
@theresnotime
About 15 years ago I gave a presentation to some academic librarians on Wikipedia. They watched in horror as I edited a page (on table-tennis) in front of them.

@theresnotime yes but any edits got yeeted by a Swiss "Men's Rights Activist" including appeals and discussion of the edits.

Never bothered since then...

@theresnotime
Yes I have, but I won't touch it ever again.
@sebsauvage aw nooo, why? D:

@theresnotime
I was editing a page about Generative Art. There was a section of relevant websites and software.

WK Editor reproached me for adding a link to my (free) software. They removed my edit.

But in the links, they had no problem leaving a link to a commercial company who sells online training.

That was a slap in the face for me.

( ⬇️ )

@theresnotime

So:
- You work on a subject, so you know well the topic.
- you add a link RELEVANT to the topic (to a non-commercial website).
- you get kicked because it's YOUR website.

Errr... of course it's my website. This is were I publish my projects.
Duh.

(PS: There are ZERO ads on my website. and I sell nothing.)

@theresnotime

Basically, they didn't even CHECK if the added information was relevant to the topic.

They saw that the URL was ressembling my wikipedia pseudo, so they just blocked everything from me.

@sebsauvage urgh :/ there's a fine line on (potential/perceived) "Conflict of Interest" editing (https://w.wiki/td8) and sometimes folx push back harder than they should.. in this case, I'm not sure, but having a conversation with someone and figuring things out (even if the outcome was similar) costs us nothing in civility..
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - Wikipedia

@theresnotime
Oh they were not interested in talking. This was a "no".

This makes me wonder how much information gets pushed back just because editors don't even CHECK if the information is revelant (which... well.. should be the main concern).

(And how many good wills totally abandon Wikipedia edition because of this.)

@sebsauvage @theresnotime

I’ve come across this as well. It seems they think a second hand source of information is better than a first hand source. In this case, if someone else mentioned your free product it would be worth something, but not you touting your own stuff.

In your case it’s silly, but I can understand their position.

@theresnotime And @openstreetmap as well!
And gotten several fixes for local shared use paths in to google maps

:)

@theresnotime
editing wiki is down to who has the most time to hover over the page, and that has come to mean whatever intern has been paid to sit there and revert changes.