Hello, I’m reading this sub since when David Grusch went on NewsNation to talk about stuff.
Uuh, I just wanna explain a little bit of the Wikipedia edits (I’m not the editor, I read the History Page). The post that got 1k+ upvotes makes it seem like there was an edit that removed some information that was long there, but that’s not true. The information was added 20 minutes before, and it seemed problematic.
On January 8th, Reluctantcanary made 4 edits. It included the award winning stuff, but also, lots of other stuff (link). While Reluctantcanary was making his edits, and 20 minutes after the initial edit, Eternal Shadow made a revision reverting the changes. An edit war followed, with changes being reverted to and from. Today (Jan 18th), the page was reverted to the original state before Reluctantcanary’s changes, and also protected from editing until Feb 1st. You can see the history here
Now, why does it seem like the original edit was problematic?
It modified almost the whole page. While I don’t have a Wikipedia account nor do edits, I’d assume that’s bad unless there’s a good reason (you’re removing content). It made the page look like a resumé for Coulthart. Yes, one can include the 5-time Walkley Award winning, but don’t remove the Bent Spoon Award. Wikipedia is meant to be informative, not to make people look a certain way or another. I think some info was missing references. For example, there isn’t a reference to the side of the Walkley Award thingy. The original page had 28 refs, the new one 15. Reluctantcanary’s account was created on the same day he made the edit (link). This doesn’t mean much, but it sorta aggregates to what was said.
Now, I think some of the info in the Reluctantcanary’s edit could go into the article. And I understand that he probably felt the previous text was too negative. But like, those things can be added, and it can be made in a way following the Wikipedia style (for example, adding references, don’t try “propping up” too much, not removing previous info without giving reasoning, etc). I think that’s the best way (and someone with Wiki skills can try that after the protection has been lifted on Feb 1st).
Anyway, frustration post ends here. Do not cancel your Wikipedia donos (or do, I don’t control). Keep fighting for transparency in the government. Maybe subscribe to askapol.
All the best
submitted by /u/cattie-cattie
[link] [comments]