You must log in or register to comment.
I truly do not understand the Wikipedia editor grind but God bless all the brave soldiers fighting in the trenches
That was one of the factors that helped it stick around, it started as an online dictionary you could link to, so you didn’t have to write out an info dump every time somebody asked online about something. Even the biggest pages on there now all started out as small stubs written off from pages in school books. Though that’s also what gained it a bit of reputation early on as it grew quicker than could be managed at times.
That’s basically how science works.
Scientist trash talking used be savage af.
Nowadays though there have been enough “trashed” theories that later turned out correct, that people have learned not to discount any possibility.
There’s trash talking in the other direction that can be equally savage. Ever been to a research talk where someone raises their hand and says “actually, this is all trivial”? The worst thing you can hear after you spend months working your ass off on a project.
Heh, I was just listening to the Planet Money podcast today about extreme UV lithography, and how the scientist presenting felt mocked out of the room. Of course this was 2000 or so.
I’m unsure if this makes your point or disproves it. I’m leaning towards supports.
Oh I’m sure there’s still some super mean spirited stuff that happens today, but it remains interpersonal and fairly private.
The old timey stuff was more like the kind where some scientist would go out of their way to straight up publicly slander people with ideas they thought were bad.
The modern equivalent would be like scientists calling each other “smooth brained” on twitter for proposing new theories that didn’t immediately make sense.
“great job improving the accuracy of determining a precise meter! Now let’s get back to it and see if we can make it even more accurate!”
Umm actually, no because scientists are incentivised to be “nice” to each other for their career growth. It’s a set of circlejerks.
It’s the closest thing to the Hitchhikers Guide we have
But I miss the concept of the handheld unit with roughly 100 buttons on the front.
3d printer and some wires n stuff.
<citation needed>
Wikipedia is a great and wonderful moment in human history.
But I understand that it can’t be monetized so fascist will attac
They are also a nonprofit that, if everyone who used it paid $3, would cover the cost.
-Definitely Not Jimmy Whales
It definitely wasn’t nothing but that - you have to start with material to correct. For example, I didn’t make this comment until this post came along.
Can see this in an old Batman tv show fight.
I want this to be so much better than it is:
It would be great if it was just the nerds, and none of the pages had funded contributors pushing their spin.
I’m one of the nerds btw
One another*
Sounds like physics in a way, a chaotic and random energy and focusing itself into positive work, creating something with order.
facebook posters use this “urge to correct” on their advantage, posting minor mistakes intentionally in public groups, and since there is no thumbs down, it get promoted by means of getting lots of interaction
Same thing with post titles on 🤮reddit.
They have played us like a fiddle!
