Hacker News Reader

Comment by Retric | Hacker News Reader

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that if you look at Wikipedia history you can find plenty of places where an anonymous user/occasional editor fixes a spelling mistake that was then reverted. That history sticks around far longer than anyone one version. And for that user all they see is that their effort is pointless.

"if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up" ... "propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reverting

I am not saying the policy is unreasonable, but it combined with the interface does discourage people.

As to an improvement, if Wikipedia sees the same edit applied twice it could detect this and walk someone through the policy.

View on HN

> I am saying that if you look at Wikipedia history you can find plenty of places where an anonymous user/occasional editor fixes a spelling mistake that was then reverted.

You're essentially refuting yourself by making the same claim again, and yet still without offering a single example of something you are claiming is rampant. If there are "plenty" of examples, it should be easy to link a few.

I'm skeptical, because I've made many small, always anonymous edits over the years, mostly correcting spelling mistakes and bad grammar. Most of these edits were even made from dynamic IPs - and yet none of them were reverted.

Why were the various Vandal Patrol groups closed?

Why is is harder to get Twinkle and Rollback now than it used to be, and why is their usage more closely monitored?

It's because people were rapidly reverting a lot of edits, and many of those edits were correct and should not have been reverted.

There's a bunch of discussion on ANI and village pump about this.

By the nature of Wikipedia it really depends on how many people / editors are looking at the page.

But, feel free to dig through the reverts they are really common and not just for regional variations in spellings.

PS: I realize listing even 50 in all of Wikipedia is not nessisarily meaningful so no I am not going to waste my time tilting at windmills.

You have made an assertion that a certain thing is a common occurence on Wikipedia, and have multiple times been asked for sources. The fact that you are still refusing to provide any sources (all the while claiming it is “really common”) is clear grounds for dismissing your point out of hand.

Here is one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pittsburgh&action...

Note all the editors messing up the correct Pittsburg(h) with and without the h in various settings. Lot's of +/- 1 edit lengths.

Now, did some how instantly validate my point? No.

PS: But it does illustrate the situation something is popular enough that many people see it, complex enough that it takes a little thought for someone to notice an issue fix it in good faith and then get reverted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com