Hacker News Reader

> Seems like Wikipedia sucks at enforcing its policy from what I am reading?

More like policies evolve and older articles are grandfathered in by the fact that they aren't edited and people aren't going back and reviewing old articles that don't meet the newer standards.

> Maybe i am missing something

You are.

> idk

That says it all.

View on HN

> More like policies evolve and older articles are grandfathered in by the fact that they aren't edited and people aren't going back and reviewing old articles that don't meet the newer standards.

Seems like Wikipedia sucks at enforcing its policy from what I am reading?

The problem is there's no monolithic "Wikipedia". If no one nominates the old articles for deletion, they don't get deleted.

The broad strokes of what Wikipedia considers notable has not changed significantly in the last 20 years.

What has mostly changed is that there are more editors now, and thus more eyes and also more serious discussion (rigor?) about such things.

Do you have proof there are more editors now? By an order of magnitude? Or don’t mean there are people who like to participate in Wikipedia drama and who don’t actively contribute to article creation?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com