• GnuLinuxDude@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unfortunately as more and more people got online it became more and more ripe for abuse. I can’t imagine Wikipedia not getting horrible defaced if its editorial standards were still in 2006. Old Wikipedia had some weird shit. Not every mid-level WW2 Nazi commander needed a page of thinly-veiled apologia, and thankfully many of those excesses are already dealt with. Also, the articles in general are of a higher quality than they used to be.

    I hope they can work out a solution that allows trusted junior editors to become admins more easily.

    • Silverseren@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is funny looking back to the earliest articles and how little rules and regulations there were for making them. Including just how loose the reliable source rules were, since there was little oversight on using, say, someone’s blog as a source of information.

      • 📛Maven@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        Back in the early days, I noticed my town had a wikipedia entry, but no demonym (word for people who live there; e.g. New Yorker, San Franciscan). I thought of a slightly rude word whose first half happened to be my town’s name (think if, say, Parisians were called “Parisites”), and added it as the demonym, totally unsourced, as a joke to show my buddy. It stayed. For a few years it stayed, never questioned. Then, the new Mayor used it in a speech; presumably, she’d looked it up on wikipedia. That speech was published in the local paper. The local paper was added to the page as a source, and not by me. A high-school gag between friends was now a sourced and cited fact.