Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance

Re:Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance by maxerickson on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @01:16PM (#13645693)

This criticism would be more useful with concrete examples.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance by makomk on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @02:44PM (#13646497)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_...

Note that of course, like everything on Wikipedia this is probably neither complete nor necessarily accurate.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance by yellowapple on Wednesday February 15, 2017 @01:40AM (#13650184)

I had no idea the game console "generation" counting was a result of citogenesis. The more you know...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance by maxerickson on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @02:54PM (#13646568)

To the extent that it is complete, that list counters the criticism made. Incidents that have been documented and dealt with aren't an example of bad information existing forever.

It's also a pretty short list.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance by makomk on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @03:09PM (#13646674)

By definition, we don't know about the incidents that have not yet been detected and once we find out about them they're no longer undetected and so don't qualify as proof under your standard. Also, there are several entries on the list that hung around for 6-8 years and made their way into publications like scientific journals, books, and obituaries that are effectively going to be around forever.

One particularly embarrassing example on the list involved a real person being falsely accused of taking part in a major points shaving scandal in college despite not even being on the team at the time, with multiple major publications repeating the claim. It was only discovered after 6 years or so because a film reviewer got an email claiming he was omitted from a film about the scandal because he wasn't even on the team, and believed that person enough to start digging despite all the coverage insisting otherwise: http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/guilt-wikipedia-joe-streater...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance by mmphosis on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @01:34PM (#13645875)

The concrete examples have been deleted.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance by TeMPOraL on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @02:00PM (#13646100)

Which means things work as they're supposed to, doesn't it?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance by TuringTest on Tuesday February 28, 2017 @08:56AM (#13753737)

The "consoles generations" articles have certainly not been fixed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance by PDoyle on Wednesday February 15, 2017 @07:43AM (#13651582)

No, obviously it does not mean that. That known flaws have been fixed says nothing about the prevalence of unknown flaws.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance by macobo on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @03:18PM (#13646733)

But you just said this:

> I've looked at large articles I contributed to a few years ago and they are now disasters.

Examples would be welcome.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Watching Wikipedia's extinction event from a distance by maxerickson on Tuesday February 14, 2017 @03:23PM (#13646779)

I think mmphosis was being tongue in cheek given the article being discussed.

In any case, they didn't make the claim about disaster articles.

[ Parent | on HN ]