When there is a heated, with a lot of strong and exaggerated arguments on both sides, and I don’t know what to believe, or I’m overwhelmed with the raw information, I look at Wikipedia. Or even something that is not a current event, but the information I found on the internet doesn’t feel reliable.

I’m sure some would find flaws there, but they do a good job of keeping it neutral and sticking to verifiable facts.

  • 📛Maven@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, the premise was “vindictive or mean editors who ‘own’ pages and refuse to allow changes to ‘their’ article”. The goodness or badness of the edits are not in question; there are editors who camp a page and find technicalities to revert anything that isn’t theirs or that they don’t like. Sometimes they don’t even find technicalities, they just do it, relying on their own reputation and your ignorance. The fact that one has to learn to do an end run around them and engage in wiki politics, hell, essentially learn an entire second legal system, to “have the truth prevail” for even a minor fact with citation is exhausting. It filters out good potential editors who nonetheless have no time to engage in the behind-the-scenes drama proceedings. It’s not like this hasn’t been a known issue for years now.

    • antidote101@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, but like with anything in life - if you keep encountering the same problem over and over again, you should probably consider your own approach to be a factor in the process.

      So sure, there probably are vindictive editors, but if it’s a reoccurring theme, then something else might be at fault.