20 Feb
2025
20 Feb
'25
8:06 p.m.
On 2025-02-20 16:16, Alan Perry via cctalk wrote:
In these cases, did someone roll back your changes? Was discussion
added to the Talk tab?
I do enough Wikipedia edits that I get to vote on board membership. Or
used to. I have only done a few edits in recent years. The trickiest
edit has been the page for a woman who was a child actor in the 70s
but is now a doctor. The info in her page was wrong (and unattributed)
and she hasn't done any interviews in 20 years or described in any
media coverage what she has done since leaving the entertainment
business. I got her e-mail address and exchanged messages with her. It
was completely surreal. We discussed what she wants the general public
to know about her now. I asked if she was sure on a few points, e.g.,
when I thought it might be too specific on where she is now. What is
on the page about her is what she felt comfortable with (as of
2019-2020). To get around the "no original research" thing, I added a
Talk tab section explaining all of the above and offered to make the
email exchanges available (with her contact info redacted). That was
5-6 years ago and no one has edited the page since.
If someone has something they think should be in a Wikipedia page and
had it removed, I can help get it added to a Talk tab entry at a minimum.
On 2/17/25 8:26 AM, David Wise via cctalk wrote:
> In my case, the self-appointed gatekeeper rejected material from the
> AES Disk Recording Anthology.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ken Seefried via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2025 12:55 PM
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
> Cc: Ken Seefried <seefriek(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [cctalk] Re: Elliott Algol
>
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 1:53 PM Cameron Kaiser via cctalk <
> cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>> I admit to a bit of pique here: I don't even bother updating Wikipedia
>> articles
>> anymore because they'll always get reverted by someone with less of
>> a life
>> than
>> me for any number of specious reasons.
>>
>>
> This is an almost perfect description of my experience of Wikipedia.
My only experience in editing was frustrating and a complete waste of
time: Somebody posted that there is no legal definition of a pint in
Canada, and the fact that their moniker was "National Pist" may give you
an idea of their bona fides. So I got in touch with Measurements
Canada, an agency of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
(previously Industry Canada). An inspector replied that a pint is one
eighth of a gallon, and a gallon if defined by metric standards as 45609
ten-millionths of a cubic metre. Doing the math, you can see that this
works out to 568.26 cc. So I posted this with reference to the specific
regulation that the inspector had quoted to me.
One week later, it had been changed back to 'There is no legal
definition of a pint in Canada'. I tried to change it back to the
correct legal definition above, but I was locked out. Naturally the
contributor was 'National Pist' again!
Then they asked me for money! I got a [polite rpely to my outraged
comment, but still could not log in!
In my last ten years as a college professor, anybody quoting wikipedia,
despite having been warned,got a healthy dose of red ink from my pen!
--
Nigel Johnson, MSc., MIEEE, MCSE VE3ID/G4AJQ/VA3MCU
Amateur Radio, the origin of the open-source concept!
Skype: TILBURY2591