On 25/06/2016 06:49, Mitar wrote:

I am an occasional editor of Wikipedia, I read it a lot, I edit
sometimes, and I am at all not familiar with bureaucracies and rules
Wikipedia community has developed through years (call me lazy, but
they simply always look too scary and too many for me to even start
reading them, walls and walls of text). When I interact with Wikipedia
I thus try to assume what reasonable rules for creating a
collaborative source of all human knowledge would be.

I don't know which articles you are referencing and I don't think I need to know. The problem, is that less than 5% of the articles are in any way useful. There are 100s of thousands of articles that simply tell me that X x is moth, or a beetle and nothing more. If I know to be looking up X x then I already know that it is a moth and not some form of frog. The there are the 100s of thousands of articles that simply tell me that A B played one game of professional baseball in 1927. Or the 100s of thousands of articles that simple state that Z is a village in Iran with 43

Wikipedia is full of this stuff which you can see by pressing the random article link a few times. If you find anything comprehensive which isn't also riddled with errors. It will almost certainly be a direct cut&paste from somewhere else.

Simple the site is overflowing with useless junk that monitoring it has become
impossible. Know one can stop Z from being moved to Cambodia, or A B from
being noted for playing tiddlywinks, or indeed turning X x into a frog.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to