Why Wikipedia is not so great | Hacker News Reader

Why Wikipedia is not so great

en.wikipedia.org

21 pointsmakimaki15 comments

By jove, that Wikipedia page is accurate and well-written!

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:A9H3pqjznZwJ:en.wikipedi...

This page has to be deleted and undeleted by admins, yes? So editors with privileges are helping to write this and reinstate it from time to time? Interesting.

So does Wikipedia let you look at deleted pages? I thought they did but from the article link I couldn't find it.

edit -- I was thinking of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Why_Wikipedia_is_n...

I guess not.

Someone killed the redirect because it was in article space.

The original article is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_...

The only problem for me is its so complicated; if I found obvious vandalism which hadn't got caught by any of the active members, it'd take me 10 mins to work out how to revert it correctly — it'd not be much harder to use it from the command line!

Yeah, I think that MetaWiki is overly complicated and heavily lacking in ease of use.

Maybe someone could treat Wikipedia as a back-end and implement a cleaner, simpler, and more powerful UI on top without having to fork the entire database?

My preferences --> gadgets --> editing gadgets.

Between the various gadgets there, I'm sure you can find what you want. And you can write your own too. There are a variety of user-contributed stylesheets and scripts listed elsewhere on the site.

Unless you're trying to do admin tasks, I'm not sure what you mean ease of use. Just click the edit button and start typing. If the formatting is wrong, someone will clean up after you.

I had no idea that was there... I'm sure most people don't.

i agree with you in spirit. for me, the social/political difficulties are even larger obstacles than the technical.

well, you did say obvious vandalism. anything other than nonsense could be a trial by fire to "correct".

there was a satire making the reddit rounds (and presumably hn?) a few months back in which editing wikipedia was extrapolated to time traveling, complete with inane policy discussions.

found it: http://www.abyssandapex.com/200710-wikihistory.html

The versioning system in MediaWiki definitely needs work.

It's great for math.

Except for the inaccuracies. I find MathWorld to be a safer bet.

I second MathWorld. Sometimes I spend hours reading it.

although i agree with the points raised here, am inclined to be critical of the uh, critic... when all is said and done, wikipedia provides a lot of info we can use and THAT is what matters...

ps: it would be to wikipedia's own good if it could reflect on the points raised by the "critic"... aren't we all for self improvement, eh?

So basicaly wikipedia reflects the society we live in and the many varied views and tactis we humans use. Intresting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com