this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
1075 points (90.8% liked)

Showerthoughts

29851 readers
479 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    • 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    • 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    • 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

there is a bureaucracy for dealing with the situation you described. the other editor gamed it, but if you were right, a little persistence would have left your edits in place.

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, but people shouldn't have to jump through hoops to help Wikipedia.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

you're right. when transitioning away from reddit, i took the time to understand how to navigate the wikipedia editor bureaucracy. I understood most of it in a week. now i just monitor a few articles in which i have an interest, and add to that list periodically.

i wish it were easier. MY SUGGESTION is to just go ahead and use the talk page instead of the main article as your first place to make an edit. if it's a good edit, it's likely someone else will write the edit themselves. if they don't and you dont see objetions, that will help your edit stand up if there is an edit war.

[–] Phen@lemmy.eco.br 3 points 1 year ago

That's what I did recently with my first contribution (not that I had any other option since the article wasn't accepting contributions from new users): One paragraph mentioned something and listed it as missing source, then the next paragraph mentioned it again and included a source. I went to the talk page and commented that the source was already there and it quickly got linked.

[–] emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I'm a lot less active than I used to be, and I no longer have the time or energy to fight. Nowadays I stick to dry technical topics, personal hobbies and the wiki in my mothertongue.

[–] Polar@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn't know what to do. I was being threatened with a ban, even after explaining myself and my edits.

At the end of the day the Wikipedia page didn't matter to me that much. Who cares if people get misinformation about an OS update. I quite literally didn't get paid enough to deal with that.

It just really changed my perspective on Wikipedia. Unless you look at the history and check out profiles of people who get in edit battles, you really don't know what's going on behind the scenes.

At the end of the day the Wikipedia page I was trying to edit ended up being corrected by someone else (who completely disregarded all of my effort), but it took a month, and someone else to do it, before the page wasn't full of misinformation anymore. RIP to anyone who visited that page within that month and never returned, because they were fed 80% misinformation.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

the etiquette and process is non-obvious so i think your reaction was totally understandable.