its a user editable web encyclopedia.
admins should lay the **** off and gtfo.
admins should lay the **** off and gtfo.
Wikipedia: Are Admins being too agressive?
It is well known that it is hard to edit existing articles from wikipedia without it being hard facts which for some reason was accidentally left out... Usually within 1 minute of editing a bot will scan an remove if the edit seems illegitimate. If you can survive the bot then that means you have to survive the Administration which more often than not will tend to eventually find and self assess the newly added material.
I recently added my own material to the Project 64 page of wikipedia under the newly created Cheats section. I spent ages formatting a brief explanation of how cheat codes work for it and had logged in recently to notice how it was edited and most of the hardest and mos detailed parts were edited out. The entire Cheats section was not removed completely, but about 50% of its data eliminated.
I checked the history of the edit to make sure it was not a regular user who had been grieving to see that it was in fact just an admin. based on the edit comment, I felt that this edit was unjustified and emailed him (or her) as to challenge this decision... here is the email:
"Jakezing,
I have noticed that a section of the "project 64" wikipedia section has been edited. The comment regarding this edit states that "this is not a guide nor a review, so dont use I[t]"... I was concerned considering the context of your accusation. I disagree with your decision on editing this section based on your reasoning. Wikipedia is in fact an encyclopedia which by definition does not state that it's "not a guide nor a review." In fact... according specifically to it's meanig, explains how it's "a "[well-]rounded education, meaning 'general knowledge.'" And thus I conclude that knowledge is knowledge and doesn't exempt guide's nor reviews.
"
I would like to see what all of you think about the topic.
Would you agree with me or disagree? why?
Do you think Admins need to be careful with what they edit?
Do you think they are misconceiving the true definition of an Encyclopedia (wikipedia)?
I recently added my own material to the Project 64 page of wikipedia under the newly created Cheats section. I spent ages formatting a brief explanation of how cheat codes work for it and had logged in recently to notice how it was edited and most of the hardest and mos detailed parts were edited out. The entire Cheats section was not removed completely, but about 50% of its data eliminated.
I checked the history of the edit to make sure it was not a regular user who had been grieving to see that it was in fact just an admin. based on the edit comment, I felt that this edit was unjustified and emailed him (or her) as to challenge this decision... here is the email:
"Jakezing,
I have noticed that a section of the "project 64" wikipedia section has been edited. The comment regarding this edit states that "this is not a guide nor a review, so dont use I[t]"... I was concerned considering the context of your accusation. I disagree with your decision on editing this section based on your reasoning. Wikipedia is in fact an encyclopedia which by definition does not state that it's "not a guide nor a review." In fact... according specifically to it's meanig, explains how it's "a "[well-]rounded education, meaning 'general knowledge.'" And thus I conclude that knowledge is knowledge and doesn't exempt guide's nor reviews.
"I would like to see what all of you think about the topic.
Would you agree with me or disagree? why?
Do you think Admins need to be careful with what they edit?
Do you think they are misconceiving the true definition of an Encyclopedia (wikipedia)?
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
>.< that sounds like communist speak.
i think they are aggressive but still effective.
![]()
Yeah some of the admins there are [email protected]$$es. Something like this has also happened to me.
A year or so ago, I edited the Wikipedia article for the novel "The Hound of the Baskerville" and put in a really good family tree for the characters in the novel (it's somewhat confusing as with most unabridged versions of novels), but a week or so later, it was gone oO
Since then, I have vowed never to even add an alphabet to Wikipedia again.
A year or so ago, I edited the Wikipedia article for the novel "The Hound of the Baskerville" and put in a really good family tree for the characters in the novel (it's somewhat confusing as with most unabridged versions of novels), but a week or so later, it was gone oO
Since then, I have vowed never to even add an alphabet to Wikipedia again.
*waits for Proto to psot a WoT full of jargon* :lol:>.< that sounds like communist speak.
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
