nixCraft 🐧Humans independently edit Wikipedia for humans. They don’t have any Ads or cannot be bullied into removing content. Wikipedia is free from AI slop. No wonder tech bros with AI companies want to eliminate it so that their fake AI text generator can show or push propaganda. Please do not let Wikipedia die. It is an independent source and far more reliable than Gen AI companies. It is a real shame that it comes to this.
Arnaud Launay@nixCraft I stopped trying to edit it. Much of my edits were erased for out of space reasons, or page were deleted for whatever other reasons. This is not an encyclopedia. This is a dictionary, badly managed by wanabees in a positon of power - and abusing it. Fuck them.
a fading echo@midgephoto @nixCraft "out of space" as in "complete madness". Not as in "we dont have enough bytes".
@midgephoto @nixCraft Back on a real keyboard :) For more infos, years ago I added a one-line summary to a TV series episode which i CC from the official web site of the serie. Apparently, it was not allowed.
If it would happen now (which it wont, because I don't edit anymore, no time to loose for this result), I think I'd ask if I should ask chatgpt to rephrase the one line sentence. It was that stupid.
More recently, @tth added a page for a fictional person (tv, book, I don't remember), which is very well known. The page got deleted.
Add to that the "we need more external sources" clusterfluck, with "uhoh no, we don't like internet pages as sources", like "ah no, the info you took from the *official* page of XXX is not good enough".
Hence, you have more and more people like me who go read-only on WP.
And the deletion of pages because whatever indicates it's *not* an encyclopedia. An En should cover anything and everything...
tTh@asl : Sorry, but it's not me who added the mentioned page, my last reject in wikipedia was a minor change who was rejected because it was "not pertinent" ;{
https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Connor&diff=prev&oldid=224667296
That's a glaring copyright fault.
An encyclopedia - take Britannica as an example - shouldn't cover _everything_ nor _anything_.
NOTABLE and ENCYCLOPEDIC are the keys.
I agree there are people who get tedious about sources, although I'd prefer a printed page or indexed journal to a website in most cases.
Now I had a page deleted and a lot of annoyance following on the topic of antivaccinationists, on the grounds, by a bunch of them that there was no such thing.
That seemed worth going on with, and some of the row found its way via requests for comment to arbitrators, and resulted in the removal and suppression of some bad faith editors.
whale.to was one of them - his is a website to not use as a source!
There are mechanisms, and they work, slowly and mostly carefully. For things that are important they are effective.
@midgephoto @nixCraft @tth britannica is space limited. Wikipedia is not really (nit by text anyway).
And for the copyright... it was like "sun: big yellow sphere" as copied from the website.
Here it was: mostly stopped editing after that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tanked&diff=prev&oldid=844080461
Not editing does seem like the common rule nowadays around me.
