Boring is subjective.
For me, Wikipedia is a joyful wealth of knowledge & collective factual editing in one of the most responsible executions expected of such a format.
If we're being subjective; knowledge is hella fun, yo.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Boring is subjective.
For me, Wikipedia is a joyful wealth of knowledge & collective factual editing in one of the most responsible executions expected of such a format.
If we're being subjective; knowledge is hella fun, yo.
not everything has to be exciting, expanding, growing, "numbers go up" damnit.
just reminding everyone, one donation to wikipedia will hurt leon's ego. if you want to help a free source of info with no ads, consider donating
Move the operations to Denmark. Florida is a fascist sinking state.
WMF has been headquartered in San Francisco since 2007, with chapters and data centers around the world. Not that California's in the US, but much better than Florida.
Not that California's in the US
I like your attitude!
[Citation needed]
California and West Coast separatism is most strongly advocated by Russian agents seeking to weaken the US.
I think everyone is in favour of weakening the US
Even the American president himself
I’m not Russian at all and I want to separate because all I get from the federal union is taxation without representation. I’m tired of subsidizing failed religious extremists. It’s abundantly clear that there is no rule of law at the federal level, and I would sooner die than bend the knee to a king.
Edit: and our homegrown Russian asset Jill Stein has never once mentioned balkanization. I just don’t believe your accusation, it doesn’t seem to be based in reality.
As a Russian, honestly these are all sorts of shit with no practical difference for us.
Except for Alaska, some people think it shouldn't have been sold. And 0.7 mln total population is (far) less than Crimea.
That aside, a confederacy (I guess some other word would be better) of the old US and some more autonomous things, like, for example, California, would possibly be a stabilizer.
“One of the things I really love about Wikipedia is it forces you to have measured, emotionless conversations with people you disagree with in the name of trying to construct the accurate narrative,”
Yeah, I think what makes Wikipedia resilient is that you can’t just go there and say something subjective. You need to find the correct way to state the actual fact, even when it can have different interpretations. Cause that way, no group can contest it.
Or they'll just declare it non-notable and speedily delete it. They've lost so many newcomers to internal bullshit like that.
That's the resiliency part of it all. Resistance to change is the security.
It's not internal bullshits, it's whether there's enough neutral-schoursches-to-schoursche-its. That's all Notability's about.
It has a really bad name though, that guideline. I was a part of the editors who wanted to change it to "suitability" but there's the resiliency.
Oh no, I once had an article I contributed removed for exactly that, notability. Not sourcing or lack thereof. That was also the last time I ever contributed, obviously.
It didn't help that a couple years later somebody else decided it was notable after all and created the article.
Notability is sourcing: Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. They even made a catchy name for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_answer_to_life,_the_universe,_and_everything (well they borrowed it but you catch my drift). Even if every single claim is Verifiable, it will be deleted if there aren't enough secondary (independent of the topic) sources because it's dangerous and likely non-neutral to only hear the subject's view of themselves. Confusing Notability with something else is a pretty common pitfall for new article creators, so there's things like "Articles for creation" where you can submit article drafts for review and have conversations with the reviewer on what exactly is wrong with your article, as well as many other guides and forums like Help:Your first article, WP:Teahouse, and WP:Help desk.
It didn't help that a couple years later somebody else decided it was notable after all and created the article.
The essay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Too_soon is often cited to say "This might get the needed sourcing in a few years, but right no we can't tell, so it's better to create the article again when it has what's needed to align with our content guidelines rather than rush to make a misleading one right now." So either that's exactly what your situation was, or . I'd love to take a look at the article you're talking about.
Boring is ok for 95% of the things.
I'm sure beer pong is much more exciting than Wikipedia. At least you're numb from the drinking and laughing at your own stupidity, even though I do that while reading Wikipedia as well.
Wow, that took me over an hour to read, totally worth it!
Says the rag that survives on drama
what did they ever do since the PC build guide?
Individually, not much. Journalism as a profession, however, has been not so slowly transitioning to sensationalism in lieu of a "just the facts, folks" methodology. Thats what I call living on drama.
Time for some encarta games