Wikipedia process is loathsome but grievance farming about deletions of articles that didn't come close to meeting mind-bogglingly well-documented inclusion standards but were about Persons of Protected Identity so we don't need to understand those standards is also loathsome
-
Show this thread
-
you know how you get an article about a video game character to stay on Wikipedia? write two citations to independent reliable secondary sources discussing it into the article. you know how you get an article about a Nobel Prize winning woman to stay on Wikipedia? C'MON GUESS
3 replies 1 retweet 8 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @chaosprime
Have a months-long revert war with a bunch of idiots that end up not only deleting the article, but also convincing you to quit Wikipedia forever?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @logfromblammo
if you're asking what burned me out on Wikipedia, it was resolving the dragging-on-for-years continually-escalating clusterfuck around the articles originally titled "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" against all sensible expectation i did it, but i was done http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFC/AAMC …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @logfromblammo
it is, and i learned some super useful stuff about cat herding, i should tweet about that
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @politiquestions @logfromblammo
i'm pretty happy with it, the fact that the articles got moved to the latter several years later with no foofaraw makes me pretty proud of how robust the foundational structure of the outcome was
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
in the process i wound up slightly personally preferring giving the movements their self-identifications rather than the ~neutral~ press style guide terms, but not by much and i changed my mind a couple times, they both have a lot going for them
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.