Wikipedia: Difference between revisions
quote cleanup
No edit summary |
(quote cleanup) |
||
Line 48:
* [[Pothole]]: Called a "piped link" over there, and [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Piped link#Intuitiveness|discouraged]].
* [[Schmuck Bait]]: [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Don't stuff up beans up your nose|Defied]].
* [[Serious Business]]: The major two factions on Wikipedia are the Inclusionists and the Deletionists, as mentioned in the introduction. Deletionism was, for some time, the primary school of thought of Wikipedia--even against the wishes of its founders. Just look at the [[Internet Backdraft|flame war]] that kicked up when Jimbo Wales [http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-ca-webscout30sep30,0,2828599.story tried to start an article about a South African restaurant], only to have it deleted almost immediately. In addition, reading discussion pages on ''any'' topic is likely to result in a lot of [[Serious Business]]
:Unfortunately, besides the serial deleters, there's also a phenomenon of 'page hoarders' who will sit on a certain page and revert and delete ''any'' changes made to it, and will spend all day arguing about it until the admins give in to them. Forget [[Wiki Vandal|Wiki Vandals]], ''these guys'' are Wikipedia's biggest problem. [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit|Counter-Vandalism Unit]], seriously, just... take a look at what they made up.
* [[Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness]]: Played straight in some more technical articles and inverted in Simple English Wikipedia.
* [[Small Reference Pools]]: One of the major underlying causes for conflict between Inclusionists and Deletionists, as well as systemic bias (see [[We All Live in America]] below and [[Serious Business]] above). If a Deletionist hasn't heard of something, it's ''obviously'' non-notable.
Line 57 ⟶ 58:
* [[Trope Codifier]]: The MediaWiki software developed for Wikipedia and the style conventions set there have set audience expectations for reference wikis.
* [[Troll]]: Some people put either totally irrelevant things on the page (sometimes [[Jerkass|wiping the whole page in the process]]) or mess it up by doing the summary wrong.
* [[We All Live in America]]: Many pages can turn into this, deciding that only information pertaining to America is useful. Especially jarring on pages meant for other countries entirely. Amusingly, there's [[wikipedia:Template:globalize|a template specifically for flagging a page as being Americacentric (or Britaincentric, or other part of the world-centric)]]. This can be applied to pages specifically written in reference to the country.
:They have a phrase for this: Systemic bias. It's not a problem limited only to English Wikipedia articles on North America, Great Britain, and Australia. Any sufficiently developed country with widespread use of English will have a significantly larger group of contributors than its non-English speaking neighbors. Hong Kong, Singapore and India being notable examples
* [[Weasel Words]]: They hate it when it shows up.
* [[Wiki Magic]]: Sometimes played straight, sometimes ''inverted'' with an editor's pet page. Inversions of this have rapidly become a common criticism as Wikipedia's tendency to focus on cutting as much content as possible, instead of adding new content, has increased.
| |||