undefined | Better HN

0 pointspastage1y ago0 comments

You can not make Wikipedia care about your pet idea without working on it yourself, so the absence of information on something is more an issue with you than with the people that edit Wikipedia.

It is impossible to argue against you because it is an opinion. First of all there is not one "Wikipedia", second of all as politicians usually say "I can not comment on specific cases". There is some truth in that saying, you can only talk about the policy and the policy continues to be "neutral point of view". Considering the horribly biased alternatives to Wikipedia that has sprung up, I would say that Wikipedia is probably the best NPOV you are going to get.

0 comments

Zambyte1y ago

> You can not make Wikipedia care about your pet idea without working on it yourself, so the absence of information on something is more an issue with you than with the people that edit Wikipedia.

Have you actually tried creating articles on Wikipedia? I've seen some pretty notable projects have pages that they wrote for Wikipedia be rejected as being "not noteworthy enough". Specifically Pleroma (a Fediverse application similar to Mastodon) comes to mind.

pastageOP1y ago

I have many fought for many disputed articles, Bitcoin is one of them. I would agree that Pleroma is not noteworthy, I am not a deletionist so I would not delete it but that is a slippery slope and you end up writing articles about date handling in Cobol. I just accept and move on, e.g. expand on the Fediverse article.

I feel for people who get their pet idea deleted.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse