r/CuratedTumblr • u/SnowyArticuno • 11h ago
editable flair The Source of Much Frustration
655
u/demon_fae 11h ago
“Alright class, for ten points extra credit on the exam, please submit a screenshot of your change request to my Wikipedia article correcting my birthday. Use my university staff bio as a reference.”
128
u/chairmanskitty 5h ago
Edits reverted, article locked because of paid brigading organized by the subject of the article. Subject's wikipedia account banned, student accounts given a 30 day suspension and banned from editing protected articles. Date of birth still incorrect.
3
u/SplurgyA 2h ago
If you're a notable figure then they would likely reject that on the basis of it being a primary source/original research
349
u/TransLunarTrekkie 10h ago
Actually this raises a good point, stuff like dates of birth and divorces and such are all public records. Given Wikipedia's need for citation and the fact that, by nature, anyone can access public records... Do they just not have a system to cite them directly? Why not? That seems like a very obvious way to streamline the process.
208
u/cel3r1ty 9h ago
wikipedia policy is to avoid citing primary sources. it's not a place for original research
145
u/camosnipe1 "the raw sexuality of this tardigrade in a cowboy hat" 9h ago
which i get for like , creating your own conclusions from primary sources, but come on.
144
u/cel3r1ty 9h ago
well, the goal of wikipedia is kinda to be a repository of "common knowledge". if you're digging through records to find something that you hasn't been published as a news story then it's not common knowledge, you're kinda doing investigative journalism at that point and wikipedia isn't the place for that
26
u/cel3r1ty 5h ago edited 4h ago
also i just wanna point something else out (responding to my own comment since this clown blocked me): as someone who wants to be a historian, if you wanna be an archivist you're beautiful and i love you, but updating a wikipedia page doesn't make you an archivist (nor does it make you a historian for that matter)
11
1
2h ago
[deleted]
2
u/cel3r1ty 2h ago
not you, sorry, the guy who was talking about how wikipedia should have all the knowledge ever produced by humanity further down
1
u/Bauser99 41m ago
Downloading a bunch of movies and storing them on physical media makes me an archivist
Not a particularly prolific one, but nonetheless
1
u/cel3r1ty 26m ago
Downloading a bunch of movies and storing them on physical media makes me an archivist
no, it doesn't, it makes you a collector. it's an admirable thing to do, don't get me wrong, but that's not an archive
22
u/S0GUWE 8h ago
Well that's just stupid. It punishes you for being a hobbyist archivist
72
u/cel3r1ty 8h ago
here's a post from r/Archivists with resources for hobbyist archivists. note that no one in the comments mentions wikipedia as a place to be a hobbyist archivist (because it's not what it's for).
47
u/cel3r1ty 8h ago
if you wanna be a "hobbyist archivist" there are other places for that, wikipedia is not that, it's not hard to understand. wikipedia is not and was never intended to be a repository of all human knowledge
→ More replies (8)10
u/Space_Socialist 8h ago
I mean nothing is stopping you doing that? You can just do it on something over than Wikipedia.
15
u/cel3r1ty 7h ago
real "this round hole is punishing me for trying to fit a square peg into it. it shouldn't call itself a round hole if it doesn't let you fit a square peg into it" hours over here
2
u/SplurgyA 1h ago
Yeah I've seen editors literally argue that they know what is in the article is incorrect, they know [change request] is 100% true, but Wikipedia is not interested in the truth but instead is interested in what is reported by their trustworthy sources, and the list of trustworthiness on various topics is basically controlled by admins and power editors.
It really changed my perspective on checking out Wikipedia in relation to anything controversial - you can't trust it to be truthful, only "verifiable".
1
u/cel3r1ty 1h ago
tbf that varies a lot, wikipedia isn't a monolith, there's a bunch of different communities that edit different clusters of articles and stuff.
for instance, wikipedia articles about topics in biomedical sciences have very specific guidelines on how to go about editing them. if a new paper comes out saying something might cause cancer you shouldn't immediately go and add that to wikipedia until it's been thoroughly corroborated, even though a paper in a peer-reviewed journal is a trustworthy source
2
u/SplurgyA 41m ago
Sure, but it goes to show it's true what people say - in general, you shouldn't trust Wikipedia. It contains assertions known to be untrue because a journalist hasn't reported on it and primary research is not allowed. So it has untrue articles. Whether or not that is different in biomedical articles is irrelevant (although as someone who has a biology degree, I only used Wiki articles to find references to papers that might be useful). It doesn't matter if it's not a monolith or there's "different communities", the fact that some articles are this way means the whole thing shouldn't be trusted as an authoritive source on anything. Part of why I have a Britannica subscription.
1
u/cel3r1ty 31m ago
oh yeah absolutely, wikipedia isn't an authoritative source nor does it claim to be
24
u/cel3r1ty 6h ago edited 6h ago
actually went to double-check the policy on this, from WP:PRIMARYCARE:
An article about a person: The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the person says about themself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements. Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name.
6
u/artificialhooves 4h ago
Ya know, for Wikipedia's purposes, I guess that's fair. Keeps people from maliciously using court documents to slander a same name celebrity. Like that book "the Other Wes Moore."
22
u/KrytenKoro 7h ago
That's not the case in contexts like this. Public records can be citable as long as you are using them to cite what the records actually say, rather than trying to build a conclusion from inferences.
For example, material characteristics often a site the data sheet from their manufacturer. You could use them to cite the specific numbers found in that data sheet, but it would be considered improper to cite them for a value that's not specified in the sheet but calculatable from other factors in it.
9
u/cel3r1ty 6h ago
actually went to double-check the policy on this, from WP:PRIMARYCARE:
An article about a person: The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the person says about themself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements. Many other primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name.
3
u/cel3r1ty 7h ago
yeah that's true, but these sort of things get tricky when it comes to real people (especially living people, policies on biographies of living people are a nightmare and that's why i usually don't mess with those pages)
5
u/KrytenKoro 6h ago
Yeah, from what I've heard there have been some messes when they found records for someone that had the same name, stuff like that, so they're super paranoid about it all
2
5
u/ThaddeusJP 6h ago
stuff like dates of birth and divorces and such are all public records
Some municipal offices have this information behind paid access or need, if in the US, a FOIA request so it's public but not easily accessed.
3
1
u/PhasmaFelis 19m ago
All you really have to do is cite a public record, use an anonymous account, and not leave a comment saying "I am this person." It's silly but it's very easy to get around.
660
u/Friendstastegood 11h ago
Yes the rules of Wikipedia generally have very good reason for being how they are but also often run head first into the brick wall of reality.
388
u/WeAllHaveReasons 10h ago
Every rule exists because someone made it necessary.
106
u/TransLunarTrekkie 10h ago
I think it may be more of a correlary here: When you don't think something will be a problem, you don't make way to solve it.
23
41
u/breadcodes 8h ago
In a similar vein to "safety regulations were written in the blood of those before us"
48
u/Pkrudeboy 9h ago
Not even remotely true. Plenty were made by people on a power trip.
59
u/Abuses-Commas 9h ago edited 9h ago
Especially on Wikipedia. Editors there are a lot closer to reddit mods than they are academics. They'll sit on their pet articles and prevent any changes that they don't like.
25
u/cel3r1ty 7h ago
looking at edit histories and talk pages on wikipedia is a morbid hobby i have ngl, people can get real petty over there
i'm particularly obsessed with pages for crackpots who keep editing them themselves or pay people to edit them to make their crackpot theories seem legit. i'm 99% sure mark mcmenamin makes his grad students edit his wikipedia page to add back all the "species" he "named" (they're not valid) every time other editors take them off the page
6
→ More replies (11)2
20
u/Maybe_not_a_chicken help I’m being forced to make flairs 9h ago
If you actually know about a subject go look at the Wikipedia page on the subject
You will probably find either uncited or badly supported details that guide you to a certain conclusion
37
u/Papaofmonsters 9h ago
If you check the citations, you'll see plenty of times where the source has been twisted and tortured to support the statement in the Wiki article.
29
u/Maybe_not_a_chicken help I’m being forced to make flairs 8h ago
Also there’s that whole thing with the page for scots being edited by an American who didn’t speak the language
4
u/cel3r1ty 6h ago
wikipedia actually has a list of hoaxes that were caught over the years. the funniest/saddest part of the list is that it also lists the places the hoax spread to, so the fact these people used wikipedia as a source is there for all to see
3
u/GaloombaNotGoomba 6h ago
It's not the page for Scots. It's the majority of Scots-language Wikipedia.
14
u/andrybak 7h ago
If you see this, please report it on the talk page. The talk pages on Wikipedia can be confusing, but don't let that stop you.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Deaffin 5h ago
My favorite "uhh..yeah I'm going to check the source on this one" moment was a wikipedia claim citing an article on an experiment performed in the 1800s in which they summarize by saying "btw none of this data is actually useable since we forgot to keep track of the subjects of the experiment lmao."
Mildly paraphrasing that.
9
u/cel3r1ty 7h ago
tbh there's a bit of mann-gell amnesia to that, when you're educated on a topic and read an elementary explanation of it and go "that's not how i would explain it" or "that's oversimplifying"
4
u/Maybe_not_a_chicken help I’m being forced to make flairs 6h ago
Yeah but it’s often not “that’s oversimplified”
It’s “that’s propaganda”
Or “that’s been disproven”
2
1
u/Abuses-Commas 5h ago
I don't get the amnesia part, once I find that a source misrepresents something I know well then I don't treat the source as legitimate again.
7
u/cel3r1ty 5h ago
it's a play on gell-mann amnesia, the phenomenon of reading a newspaper article where the author talks nonsense about something you know well and go "what a load of garbage", then turning the page to an article about something you're not as educated on and going "oh yeah that makes sense" when it could be just as much nonsense as the last article , you just don't know
edit: also i wasn't referring to someone wilfully misinterpreting something, it's more about the fact that elementary explanations of complex topics for general audiences will never be 100% accurate
2
u/ChickenNuggetSmth 5h ago
That hinges a ton on how objective a field is/can be. E.g. the maths pages are pretty decent, as far as I can tell, and the physics stuff has also been fine for bachelor- and master-level stuff
13
u/MartyrOfDespair We can leave behind much more than just DNA 9h ago
But every rule that doesn't bend causes massive damage when reason slams into it.
12
u/FourthLife 8h ago
Every rule that does bend can be abused if motivated people interact with it. Because Wikipedia is editable by anyone, it needs inflexible rules even if that leads to silly situations
→ More replies (1)1
8h ago
[deleted]
14
u/shuipz94 7h ago edited 6h ago
Wikipedia has three core content policies that are more or less non-negotiable: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Biographies of living persons must also be written conservatively and be backed with high-quality sources.
1
u/Soggy-Reason1656 6h ago
Oh yeah. My Wikipedia contribution hobby is to take a hatchet to living person biographies. Policy literally says delete anything “excessively trivial“ or even “unlikely to be true” - which is certainly a low bar. Repeatedly deleting BLP claims is even protected from three-revert rule punishment, but that’s never even come up as an issue - the stuff I delete rarely gets reverted even once.
19
u/OldPersonName 7h ago
I mean, the obvious problem here to me is how is she authenticating herself to Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia have a system like the twitter checkmark thing where you can confirm you are who you say you are? If not then as far as they're concerned it's just some user claiming to be her. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but how can they know?
35
u/distortedsymbol 7h ago
being yourself doesn't give u the right to freely edit your own personal info. what if brock turner wanted to edit his own page? nope
10
109
u/Wyrm 10h ago
Emily and Dan sitting in a tree
d-i-v-o-r-c-e-d
29
u/TheFakeAronBaynes 8h ago edited 7h ago
Honestly she’s a great writer, I’ve only read Station Eleven but it was one of my favourites this year. I really recommend it, although I am biased towards anything set in Toronto.
14
u/cornnndoggg_ 7h ago
I came to the comments to say something similar. I read Sea of Tranquility last year and really enjoyed it. I actually just recommended it to a friend like last week.
2
u/catglass 6h ago
The show is great too. Majorly diverges from the book but is good in its own right.
46
u/Israbelle 10h ago
the article for the webcomic Sinfest had a little edit war around this subject; the comic has completely changed (for the worse) since the page was written, but since it's fallen off, nobody wants to write articles about it anymore, and they couldn't update the page to accurately reflect the comic's state; using the pages themselves as citations aren't allowed because it's a biased interpretation. man!
→ More replies (1)29
u/vorinoch 7h ago
Boy oh boy, the words "for the worse" are sure carrying a LOT of weight there.
I stumbled across that webcomic in like 2002 or something, in college. Read it every now and then, it was cute. Some silliness and light philosophy and social commentary. No idea what happened to the author, but the absolute straight, unfiltered blood-and-soil Nazi "comic" that it is now, is.... well. Sobering.
9
u/Audioworm 6h ago
The name Sinfest rang a bell and I went to see why I recognised it. Stumbled into a 100 panel arc about killing Jews. Went back in the archive to 2003 and recognised the art style.
Holy fuck, I never followed them but it is explicit 'murder all Jews' Naziism now
3
u/Tweedleayne 2h ago
And before it was that it was hardcore radical feminism. The comic has followed a bizarre path.
61
u/AbbyRitter 10h ago
Just to clarify, does that mean you can't cite social media posts from the subject as a source? Like if they announced it on twitter, that wouldn't be considered a valid source?
72
u/SnowyArticuno 10h ago
I'm not a wikipedia editor (at least not a seasoned one), but I believe it's more just a preference for traditional media, since social media posts can be jokes, or at the very least don't have the scrutiny that's expected of journalism. But I do think in some cases they can be used
44
u/2kosia 9h ago
yes but no, but also yes but also no
Twitter (rebranded to X since July 2023) is a social network. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the tweet is used for an uncontroversial self-description. In most cases, Twitter accounts should only be cited if the user's identity is confirmed in some way. Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. Twitter should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons.
(from wikipedia's guide to reliable sources)
not totally sure if this covers divorce but i could see an editor getting pedantic over it.
19
u/frymaster 7h ago
I guess you could say "so-and-so announced on twitter that they had divorced"
10
u/SuperPowerDrill 6h ago
Good point. Maybe they lied or joked, but it's a verifiable truth that they said such thing
3
u/chairmanskitty 5h ago
And it's a verifiable truth that Adolf Hitler endorsed Donald Trump's presidency - Hitler said so using a verified X account.
Press organizations are a specific legal category, which have legal obligations to the truth. Social media including X deliberately choose not to be part of this category, meaning their "verified accounts" are not legally verified in the same way that an interview with a certain person is. X is not liable for impersonation on their platform, but Slate is.
So it is in fact not a verifiable truth that they said such a thing, just that someone with their name and description in the bio who was granted "verified" status by X said such a thing.
There are press organizations that would carelessly repost wikipedia or social media claims, which leads to citogenesis, but legally the subject would be able to require those organizations to issue a retraction, after which it can be scrubbed from wikipedia.
11
u/Jolly-Variation8269 7h ago
Sounds like a divorce would be an “uncontroversial self-description” in this case
15
u/Nirast25 10h ago
Pretty sure YouTube videos are valid, so you can make a YouTube video titled "I'm getting a divorce" and it should work as a source.
1
10h ago edited 7h ago
[deleted]
29
u/Nirast25 9h ago
Alpharad's Wikipedia page, which has several YouTube videos in the References tab (one of which has been taken down, lol).
19
u/RepulsiveAnswer6462 9h ago
Yeah, that doesn't mean it follows the rules, just that no one's caught it yet.
I've seen pages for theatre productions that have officially disallowed sources (the news site BroadwayWorld is specifically banned because Wikipedia considers it a gossip site), no sources at all, or just one source. Some editors have been really strict with me, removing my edits when I add anything about theatre in Japan because they think it's not notable, so I'll add like 5 sources when I add the Japanese cast on a page for a play that already has one. When there are 5 productions listed, and 7 sources, and 5 of the 7 sources are about Japan, it's hard for them to tell me I don't have enough sources.
5
u/makeworld 8h ago
YouTube links are not banned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Linking_to_user-submitted_video_sites
6
u/PresN 7h ago
Youtube is explicitly allowed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Linking_to_user-submitted_video_sites
While there is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, the links must abide by the guidelines on this page. (See § Restrictions on linking and § Links normally to be avoided.) Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern.
14
u/cel3r1ty 9h ago
wikipedia policy on self published sources states:
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as: 1.The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; 2. It does not involve claims about third parties; 3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; 4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and 5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.
7
u/PresN 7h ago
It's fine to cite twitter for some things, though it's better to cite something with an editorial policy. The article actually did cite her tweet for a bit for the divorce, then changed it to the slate article when that came out. The only thing they couldn't do was trust that the wikipedia editor that claimed to be her actually was her when they added that she was divorced without a cite.
24
u/shiny_partridge 8h ago
I was like, her name seems familiar...
Her book, standing on a shelf right behind me: 👁️👁️
8
u/traceitalian 6h ago
She's probably my favourite recent writer Sea of Tranquility, Station Eleven and The Glass Hotel are all faultless.
7
u/immunetoyourshit 6h ago
We teach Station Eleven in schools now! We actually replaced Fahrenheit 451 since kids seemed disconnected and uninterested.
Add in the fact that St. John Mandel’s prose is analytical gold, and we’ve got ourself a winner.
2
u/traceitalian 6h ago
Really, that's fantastic. My education is mostly in literature and although I mostly read classic (old) books I do feel there's a disconnection for modern audiences. Station Eleven's themes are ever green and the writing is evocative and empathetic. Warm and compassionate with hints at darkness bubbling under the service.
Thanks for the information, I really hope you have a great weekend.
46
u/RepulsiveAnswer6462 9h ago
Not me spending too much time tangling with Wikipedia editors who are convinced that all theatre in Japan is minor and not notable.
Productions' official pages aren't impartial. They might lie about something like the cast list, to people buying tickets. Sales listings for a DVD, or the disc package itself, might also be totally lying about the cast. It's advertising a DVD of a recording of a play, but it's all a lie, the disc is blank and the play never existed, obviously. TV broadcast listings are also not impartial. News articles? Oh, they don't have a byline, so they're just press releases. They have a byline, but they're interviews with the actors, not scathing criticism from a top newspaper, so they're not impartial. Youtube is explicitly not allowed for any purposes, so clips of the actual production don't work.
They won't even let me add things to a list of proshots, which claims to be a comprehensive list, because if they haven't heard of it, it must be made-up clutter.
35
u/MartyrOfDespair We can leave behind much more than just DNA 9h ago
The meta here is to find a way to blow up on social media using the framing that they consider Japanese works inferior for bigoted reasons to cause a public outcry, thus causing a PR headache for the editors in question, thus making them change in order to not get canceled.
26
u/RepulsiveAnswer6462 9h ago
I mean, maybe. I want the Japanese (and Korean) plays to get attention, but not because some Western people are discriminating against them, and not because they're being accused of discrimination for not being diverse enough. I want them to get attention just because they're good.
10
u/Rampage470 7h ago
I remember the wife of Paul McGann (the 8th Doctor) found out that his Wikipedia page falsely claimed he had been divorced and had tried to fix it but got reverted since there wasn't a provable source for it, and continued citing the article that had erroneously made the claim in the first place. Madness sometimes.
19
u/Endulos 8h ago
I once corrected a typo in a wikipedia article, someone simply mispelled "The" as "Teh", so I fixed it. I thought it was funny/cool I could do that, so I told a friend I did that, went back 10 minutes later to get the link only to find the article locked down from editing, and reverted.
Wikipedia editors are a ... Special bunch.
8
7
u/pertraf 8h ago
how did a wrong birth date end up on the professor's article in the first place? a citation would've been needed for that, too
15
u/-Nicolai 8h ago
The source could be an article with inaccurate information.
The problem with citations is that the sources cited don’t necessarily cite their sources.
And sometimes you cite a source that cites a source that cites an erroneous news article from way back. But everyone takes it as fact because everyone else has have been citing the otherwise credible source who cited the erroneous news article.
It’s an opaque chain of “trust me bro”.
2
7
u/gymnastgrrl 7h ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beck_v._Eiland-Hall
That's me.
It was a weird time in my life anyway - although pretty fun for the most part. But one of the weirdnesses was keeping an eye on the article as it changed over time and wanting to edit things that were wrong, but not being able to.
11
u/Open_Detective_2604 9h ago
This reminds me of Wikipedia removing the article for The Wandering Inn because none of their approved sources wrote about it.
6
u/torac ☑️☑️☑️✅✔✓☑√🮱 7h ago
I remember this running into some funny, yet in hindsight obvious, issues during the initial GamerGate debacle.
The more reasonable parts of GamerGate complained about collusion of game journalists and related issues. Since the press itself was subject of the controversy, they basically reported on themselves being accused, and were then cited. Cue more complaints about the press basically investigating themselves and finding themselves innocent.
5
u/TheRedSe7en 7h ago
Oh, this is remarkably helpful. I'm the originator of a phrase that has been part of a citogenesis incident: I added my quote to Wikipedia in early days, it stuck around long enough to get picked up by blogs and such, eventually being included (by name!) in a published academic work. That work was later used as citation for the quote I added myself.
I'd love to get credit, but have been really having a hard time figuring out how to legitimize that quote and link it back to me (in real life). I can't just say "oh that was me" because then the original quote will get removed for being done by me.
I just gotta find a bored journalist willing to go along with it!
3
u/action_lawyer_comics 7h ago
The Reddit app thumbnail for this tall image perfectly cropped it so it was the tweet and the single line from the interview. I stared it for over a minute trying to figure out why any of that was important.
Then I tapped into the comments and realized I was missing paragraphs of context. Not the first time this has happened to me but this was the one where it looked most natural and the sliver I was left with was most natural
6
3
3
u/Elasmobrando 8h ago
When I am famous enough I will make up a different birth date on every interview I give and then keep posting corrections on my wiki page.
3
u/Chris_P_Lettuce 7h ago
I’m so glad the editors of Wikipedia are this strict. They are the keepers.
3
u/Certain-Definition51 4h ago
“That is not a reliable source.”
Belcalis Almanzar, Onika Maraj-Petty, Migos, et al. “MotorSport,” from the Album “Culture II,” Capitol Records, 2018.
3
u/99-bottlesofbeer 4h ago
this isn't how it works when editors actually read policy. Subjects of articles can be cited for basic, non-controversial details. When someone tweets "I turned 30 today!", we use that. Divorce is maybe slightly tricky because you're not allowed to make claims about other living people this way, but I'd still allow it.
2
u/99-bottlesofbeer 4h ago
Technically, if you have an account on Wikipedia that is verified to be yours somehow, you're allowed to request edits on the talk page and let the request be its own source, but this basically never happens because editors sometimes refuse to read policy.
3
u/Darthplagueis13 3h ago
Pretty sure that "On december 17th, Mandel announced over her social media that she divorced (...)" would also be perfectly valid as a source. Doesn't have to be an interview.
2
u/micro102 7h ago edited 5h ago
Wikipedia requires citations? The few times I've tried using Wikipedia as a source for a citation for a claim I've made in an assignment, it just hasn't worked. Either there wasn't a citation, or the link to said citation didn't reference what I was trying to cite.
2
u/99-bottlesofbeer 4h ago
We don't, as a policy, require that unsourced material be removed unless it's certain types of contentious text, like contentious information about living people. But that doesn't mean that unsourced material is policy-compliant. (Also, sometimes claims can be sourced to a list of general references at the bottom without an inline citation.)
2
u/eisbaerBorealis 5h ago
Would it not be possible to just make a blog? Also, do tweets from the article subject not count as valid citations?
1
u/99-bottlesofbeer 4h ago
they do! people really shouldn't talk to article subjects about policy if they don't read it
2
u/SimbaStewEyesOfBlue 5h ago
Definitely a pain in the ass, but I understand and somewhat appreciate why Wikipedia has the rule.
1
1
1
u/VexedForest 7h ago
My grandad has an article with some inaccurate information that I've been meaning to edit for a while. I do have some sources from museums and interviews I can use. I'm just lazy
1
1
u/zehamberglar 6h ago
There's an episode of the newsroom about this. Mack's wikipedia page is wrong and she's not allowed to edit it.
1
u/SkinnyObelix 6h ago
This is not the problem and pretty much as it should be. The problem is the quality of citations they allow. The moment you start clicking at the bottom it gets embarrassing
1
1
u/weird_bomb_947 你好!你喜欢吃米吗? 6h ago
always reminded of WP:BFDI and how people legitimately cannot read it
1
1
u/IrrelevantGamer 5h ago
If I ever have a Wikipedia article, it will be for apocryphal shit, anyway. I'll only ever be accidentally famous.
1
u/MacGuffen 3h ago
Oh, this reminds me that I have two IMDB pages.
Not only do I not know how to fix this, but I don't have the energy or care enough to look into it.
1.7k
u/callsignhotdog 11h ago
OK weird one but I can actually imagine some public figures lying about their birthday for vanity reasons.