Well, not Wikipedia in and of itself. I do like Wikipedia. It's just that when people rave about how anyone can edit an article, well, I find that to be not true.
You see, last night (Fri., 26th) there was a note posted at Refugees asking why Multiply wasn't in this index of social-networking sites on Wikipedia. As it turns out, it was, the user just didn't notice because he looked quickly at work. A Multiply employee commented that the Multiply entry, saying that the entry needed major work but it would be a conflict of interest for him to edit it. I decided to go in, and play with it a bit.
Wikipedia stated that they would display my IP address as having done the changes unless I registered. I would rather not have my IP everywhere (though I know it is) so I registered. You can find me as "Zebaron" over there. I edited in a few sources for the article, I expanded on some information already there, and added some updated information. I added the 3rd, 5th, and 7th paragraphs here.So that was fine and dandy.
Then as I was scrolling down the list... Yahoo! 360 was included. I decided to scoot over and check out what was going on there. I decided to edit some stuff in. So I wrote a bit about how the community is falling apart, and that many users have switched to other platforms or quit blogging entirely. Okay, I saved it, and admired my work. Then I added it to my watch list.
So I came back over here, to Multiply, to catch up on some PMs. After I was done, I checked my Watched posts, not really consisting of much except Multiply and 360. I noticed that 360 was edited. So I click on it, head in. Here, another user deleted what I wrote!
I decided since I was new, I'd go to the users page and ask why they did it. They said I didn't source it properly. She told me I needed a reputable 3rd-party source. Fine, I said, but how do I document a source of people leaving an internet site? So I looked, and I looked, and found an article on TechCrunch about Jerry Yang's decision to close Yahoo! 360, and that 360 lost 51% of it's readers between 9/06 and 9/07 (in America) and 22% in the same time internationally. I cited that, and wrote up a rather nice paragraph, even citing it with a footnote. I was proud of myself. I went back to the user's page and told her that I thought I cleared everything up, if she had problems, would she please contact me rather than just remove everything I did. I checked back on the article, and it was already re-edited by her, almost completely removing and rewriting what I had just written!
I went back to her page, telling her "Do I say "Thank you" or do I tell you how disgusted I am?" among other innocuous comments. I hit "save," but it said another user was commenting, so I waited a few seconds, saved, and she already came back explaining her edits. I was furious!
After more squabbling, I decided to hell with it. I surrendered. I left her a nice parting gift, too. To read that conversation, I'd invite you to click here. Scroll to the bottom where it says "Yahoo! 360 Edits." This is the comment I left when I finally got fed up, and resigned:
clipped from en.wikipedia.org
I do see your reason, but unfortunately, I think something larger is at play. It appears that, in its entirety, I wasted quite a bit of my time. I do suspect that nothing I would have written would have been good enough for you, and I concede that point. It would be quite a shame for I, a new editor, to try and add information to a C-list article as per the aims of Wikipedia. I should hope that you realize the disgust factor was not Wikipedia, or the complications of the system, but rather the inhospitality that was willing to undermine every step I tried to take. I do believe I'll be removing my account in the next few days... it's all for naught. Respectfully, Zebaron (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
You see, dear friends, I have a theory. I think that there are prolific contributors there, sort of "hall monitors," if you will, since anyone can edit (and vandalize!) articles. I think these hall monitors, once they write or do a fair amount of editing, squat on an article by "watching" it. Watching automatically notifies you of updates. I think these hall monitors do their damnedest to have the biggest rack of medals by having the most articles under their paw. I think it's superiority complex -- they resent a new user coming in and adding content.
So, in the end, I guess the title's wrong. Wikipedia does not suck. It's the concepts Wikipedia was founded on: Anyone can edit. Well, they can -- if only for a few minutes.
-Ze Baron
No comments:
Post a Comment