Comment by flenserboy

4 years ago

Good. I have seen editors exclude articles on actual public figures — multiple (credible) books published, academic publications, interviews on mainstream media — as being "irrelevant", "unimportant", etc., etc., all seemingly because, when the editor's chain of edits is examined, that person took a position with with the editor strongly politically or policy-wise disagreed with on the strongest terms. The editor system is one of Wikipedia's greatest weaknesses — people with bones to pick and hills to die on work to exclude even mainstream views with which they disagree, and there is no way to stop them from running amok. Something really needs to be done about this.

17 comments

flenserboy

Reply
Ekaros  4 years ago

I'm kinda wondering about future. I can well imagine that some current minor minister of a country is notable enough for now, but what about 10 or 20 years in future? Will their articles just end up deleted? Even if they were perfectly good and factual?

  • archon1410  4 years ago

    Notability is not time limited on Wikipedia. Wikipedia notability guidelines on politicians states that members of national level legislative bodies are automatically notable, so the articles will stay as long as Wikipedia in all likelihood.

q1w2  4 years ago

I wonder if a editor action review process would help here. If reviewers were themselves reviewed for their actions, and promoted/demoted based on their adherence to a set of public guidelines.

...for example, deleting an article that you took a political position on - should get you demoted from being a reviewer in general.

cmeacham98  4 years ago

I read through wikipedia AfD occasionally for fun (yeah, I know, I'm a weirdo). I'm not going to say it's never happened ever, but I've never noticed an AfD that ended up with a delete consensus that was obviously started due to an editor's political bias.

Can you provide examples to substantiate this claim?

wwwwy  4 years ago
  • donio  4 years ago

    > (I would go into more detail, but I'll be flagged to oblivion, as this is also the prevailing opinion on this site too.)

    It's the opposite, not supporting your claim with evidence when it should be straightforward to do so is what's going to get you flagged into oblivion.

  • Dylan16807  4 years ago

    > (I would go into more detail, but I'll be flagged to oblivion, as this is also the prevailing opinion on this site too.)

    You're on a throwaway account. That's not a valid excuse.