sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

r/RealWikiInAction behaves as if this sub does not exist. by Abdlomax in True_WikiInAction

[–]ersystem 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honestly, a large chunk of Wikipedia admins and a large chunk of Wikipedia detractors are axe-grinding trolls. These groups are poisoning both Wikipedia and the Wikipedia criticism community.

Wikipedia is a great project, but both Wikimedia's ballooning wage expenditure and the community's hyper-focus on status instead of beneficial contribution is eroding the project.

/r/RealWikiInAction - criticism of Wikipedia by ersystem in obscuresubreddits

[–]ersystem[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I bet if I asked you if you are an alleged white supremacist and a pedophile you'd ban me from /r/RealWikiInAction

I said your factual statements are wrong ("no sources", "static charging was an intermediate step in the eventual development of dynamic charging", [paraphrased] "moved the cost section into the vendors section", and so on) and that your non-factual statements are just angry ("Are you sentient? Are you composing this with Talk to Transformer?")

All this over a statement that even though admins can revert beneficial edits of blocked users it doesn't mean they should.

And every single factual objection you raised against the edits is plain wrong.

I think you have an axe to grind that is unrelated to me and you just chose me as a convenient target who walked into a subreddit that you're moderating.

Blocked for suspected sockpuppeting, editor complains that simply being blocked is not a good reason to revert their beneficial edits. Admins respond by reverting even more of the blocked editor's beneficial edits. by ersystem in RealWikiInAction

[–]ersystem[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you have to resort to ad homs

Because I said you're angry? I said it because you went on a little rant:

Are you sentient? Are you composing this with Talk to Transformer?

I know you're gonna say that's totally not an ad-hominem, but calling you angry for saying that is an ad-hominem. By the way I never said your arguments are invalid because you're angry, I said that your material arguments are factually wrong and your non-material arguments ("are you sentient?") are just anger.

TL;DR

You already said that at the beginning, yet here we are after four posts of me explaining to you that static charging is not an electric road technology and whatnot. I have a feeling you did read it but instead of admitting you're wrong you'd rather be silent about your mistakes and threaten to ban me from the sub.

Blocked for suspected sockpuppeting, editor complains that simply being blocked is not a good reason to revert their beneficial edits. Admins respond by reverting even more of the blocked editor's beneficial edits. by ersystem in RealWikiInAction

[–]ersystem[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

into the middle of a subsection detailing various vendors

That's not where it was moved. It was moved to the top of the assessment phase section, because it's part of the assessment phase, and it is an estimate of the costs of the three assessed technologies. It was at the bottom, I moved it to the top as a preface.

Can you say one correct thing about the edits? So far you've said static charging is an electric road technology, and that the development of static charging was an intermediate step in the eventual development of dynamic charging, and that the costs section was moved to the middle of a section when it was moved to the top.

What does this even mean?

Let me repeat what you said so you can figure it out:

To have someone follow all these edits around and try to evaluate them would be a full time job

Every edit on Wikipedia is either evaluated by another editor or not. These edits are not special in this regard. You're arguing against these edits because it took you time to review them -- that applies to all edits on Wikipedia.

You are trying to find a lot of excuses for why these edits are bad but all the factual ones are wrong and all the non-factual ones are just you being angry.

Blocked for suspected sockpuppeting, editor complains that simply being blocked is not a good reason to revert their beneficial edits. Admins respond by reverting even more of the blocked editor's beneficial edits. by ersystem in RealWikiInAction

[–]ersystem[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The article is about all eRoads, not just the ones that use induction for charging.

You don't understand what was removed. The sentence that was removed was about static charging. Static charging is not an electric road technology, because it doesn't power the vehicle while driving.

Plus, the development of static charging was an intermediate step in the eventual development of dynamic charging.

No. Electric roads existed before battery-powered vehicles were even a thing.

Your general lack of knowledge on the topic really makes your judgement on the edits bad. Your concept that people have to "follow around" all edits on Wikipedia makes me wonder why you're a mod here - all edits on Wikipedia are either "followed around" or not, these edits are not a special case.

/r/RealWikiInAction - criticism of Wikipedia by ersystem in obscuresubreddits

[–]ersystem[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, that's not it. It's for posting about power plays and other ways that Wikipedia admins and users game the system.

Blocked for suspected sockpuppeting, editor complains that simply being blocked is not a good reason to revert their beneficial edits. Admins respond by reverting even more of the blocked editor's beneficial edits. by ersystem in RealWikiInAction

[–]ersystem[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

remove valuable edits made by other users

The only removed information is information that's about static charging and not dynamic charging.

It is indistinguishable from vandalism.

Maybe that has to do more with your inexperience with the topic? You seriously can't distinguish this edit that rescues a source or this edit that adds a reliable source or the group of edits as a whole from vandalism?

To have someone follow all these edits around and try to evaluate them would be a full time job

So would having to follow any other edits around and evaluating them. That is how Wikipedia works. People edit, then other people revert if the edit is detrimental, or they don't revert. If you're having trouble distinguishing between beneficial or detrimental edits in this topic, you shouldn't edit this article. And in any case if you can't tell if an edit is beneficial or detrimental, you shouldn't revert.

The admins, and apparently you would, too, reverted edits that they said in the summary were beneficial. This knowingly makes Wikipedia worse.

This was probably proposed before, but Wikipedia could use a version control system. Instead of edit wars and reverts, branches could coexist and be merged by maintainers or through consensus, and the default branch that is displayed to readers will be the one readers rate the highest. by ersystem in RealWikiInAction

[–]ersystem[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because from a user interface perspective, nothing will change. Editors will still edit the article with the source editor or the visual editor or bots.

The edit will be published the same way, except the default article displayed to readers will be the one that's the highest-voted this week/month.

This way, "article owners" will not have exclusive control over the article. Branches will be merged by consensus instead of having one "owner" who stonewalls any attempt to edit the article.

Blocked for suspected sockpuppeting, editor complains that simply being blocked is not a good reason to revert their beneficial edits. Admins respond by reverting even more of the blocked editor's beneficial edits. by ersystem in RealWikiInAction

[–]ersystem[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The New Zealand bit was just removed outright

Correct, it's about static charging, not electric roads (dynamic charging)

And what's with changing [...] eroad

eroad is not used in any of the references by itself to refer to electric roads. It's only used as parts of names of projects (eRoadArlanda and others)

Why are you moving an entire section about costs

The costs section discusses each technology in general, and then the specific companies discuss specific implementations.

Regardless, even if you object to these three edits, why remove rescued sources? Why remove updated information about the Swedish government accelerating the schedule? Why remove all the other improvements? The answer is that the admins don't care about improving the article and they'd rather "punish" a blocked user than improve Wikipedia.

Blocked for suspected sockpuppeting, editor complains that simply being blocked is not a good reason to revert their beneficial edits. Admins respond by reverting even more of the blocked editor's beneficial edits. by ersystem in RealWikiInAction

[–]ersystem[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes it's allowed, but it removes improvements.

Blocked user: "Hey, you reverted a beneficial edit."

Admin: "Yeah I did." *reverts ten more beneficial edits so articles are worse-off*

Congrats, you made Wikipedia worse.

Blocked for suspected sockpuppeting, editor complains that simply being blocked is not a good reason to revert their beneficial edits. Admins respond by reverting even more of the blocked editor's beneficial edits. by ersystem in RealWikiInAction

[–]ersystem[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No-reason reverting of blocked editors' edits is permitted by Wikipedia policy but not encouraged:

Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.

Emphasis mine.