Wikipedia Adds "WikiLove" For Newbie Editors 225
mikejuk writes "Wikipedia has a cunning plan to make wikipedians nicer to each other — its all about WikiLove. They can click on the Love button to make each other feel good about contributing anything from an article to an edit. The idea is that this will encourage newbie editors to stay and contribute rather than slink away into the rest of the web because their contributions get deleted and derided. Perhaps all we need for world peace is a big enough love button."
'because their contributions get deleted' (Score:2, Informative)
*open hood of car*
>because their contributions get deleted and derided
Well, now, there's ya problem.
Wikipedia is communism (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Millions of little fiefdoms (Score:3, Informative)
I had a similar experience. I added important new information to an article about the subject I am an expert on (15+ years professional experience) which took me a couple of hours to write and cite. All additions were deleted, reverted and gutted within 24 hours, with no sane explanation. I did not bother to contest or debate this - my time is better spent where it's appreciated.
Gave up on Wikipedia long ago (Score:5, Informative)
With the problems I've had in the past I don't know if this is going to be nearly enough. Wikipedia's problems lies in the fact that many, if not most, of their long-time editors consider themselves the end-all be-all of Wikipedia. I've contributed to several pages, cited properly, and still get reverted because someone disagrees with the page for reasons other than factual accuracy. For example, when editing an article about Vince Lombardi and citing sources the changes were reverted for no given reason. When I asked why I was reverted I was not given a reasonable answer (and was trolled in the process). So I stopped contributing. I'm now content to let the self-appointed elites run the site.
That's the other reason I will never give a red cent to Wikipedia. So long as the Wikipedia mafia of editors continue to run things the way that they do I think the site will suffer and eventually wither out as it's last gasp of neutrality and openness disappear behind the power-hungry editors who run the site the way that they want to run it. If Jimmy wants Wikipedia to succeed he'll start with the cadre of idiots who currently run the place.
Wikipedia needs a karma system: write before edit (Score:2, Informative)
The problem with Wikipedia is the deletionists: those who destroy content rather than creating it. There should be a karma system where you have to add a certain amount of content before you can use the karma points to destroy content.
It's gotten to the point where specialized wikis are getting all the love -- I know people who stopped contributing 5 years ago and would never even consider going back.
Re:Encouragement (Score:5, Informative)
You know, everyone on slashdot keeps saying stuff like this, but in my corner of the Wikipedia (palaeontology), most pages are under-edited. If anyone comes along and adds relevant, cited information, the edits are most certainly kept. If you cite a real paper that you've read and understood, we'll be pressing that love button!
There is a lot of reverting, but most of it is reverting popular misconceptions that have no citation, or ideologically driven edits (usually creationists, again with no citations).
Is this because people are going and trying to edit the Mohammed or Jesus pages or something? Because I really don't get what you're all on about. Maybe my interests are esoteric, but I've never had a real problem getting edits to stick on any subject, even on controversial fringe topics like cryptozoology.
Re:I tell you what (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I tell you what (Score:5, Informative)
Same here. I was correcting the BitchX article (it pointed to Bitchx.com as the IRC Client's website, which is a domain squatter. BitchX.org is the real site). Within minutes, it was reverted. I corrected it again with a better description (assuming I wasn't clear enough the first time), same thing. Finally, someone else corrected it, and all history of the battle disappeared.
However, I did look at the history and saw that this has been done several times by several other people, only to get reverted back to the wrong website each time.
The only thing this really does is make me sad though. Wikipedia could be (and sometimes still is) a great resource, but bullshit like this is what ruins it for everyone.
Re:Millions of little fiefdoms (Score:4, Informative)
Sometimes you can get your edits to stick by asking a neutral moderator to check them and make a decision. Then it is 50/50 if the moderator is an asshat or not but it is worth a try just to see the steam shooting from the ears of the articles rightful "owner". If you are really lucky the original author might give up on Wikipedia entirely and you can feel like you achieved something worthwhile.
Oh yes, and don't forget that you can't remove stuff on your personal page permanently. Even if you delete it, it remains in the history. Make sure you put copious links to the original authors asshattery on his page (or permanent record as I like to call it). Encourages them to stop editing Wikipedia.
Harsh but this is the only way we have any hope of reclaiming it.
Re:I tell you what (Score:4, Informative)
Same issue here. I would try to make simple changes, like change a birthdate on a page. Some obviously had issues, I cannot remember the celebrity off the top of my head, but in the article, her birthdate was stated 10 years later than what was stated in the summery in the side column. A simple visit to numerous fan sites showed that the date in the article was wrong, so I would change it, and provide links to support the change. It would be reverted back usually within a few minutes.
I had a similar issue with our city page. I love in a very small town, and the page on Wikipedia was pretty much full of racial slurs and misinformation, not a single piece of which was linked to. Made several complaints and tried to change the page, but it kept getting reverted, and the responses I got were that the information on the page was accurate.
Let's look at the last 5 Wikipedia edits by n00bs. (Score:2, Informative)
Wikipedia has a page which tracks what n00bs are doing. [wikipedia.org] Here are the last five edits by new editors in article space:
None of those added any value to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is mostly done. All the important topics were covered in the first million articles. Most new pages [wikipedia.org] are junk. It's about cleanup and correction now. That's a detail-oriented job. It's not like posting to some forum.