I can’t remember where, but I recently ran across someone else who was having trouble correcting some inaccuracies on Wikipedia regarding numbers in the Episcopal Church. They posted the additions/corrections they made along with citations (and having edited several non-controversial Wiki pages myself, I know they did it correctly), but they continued to have their changes deleted and very nearly got themselves banned. Ahh well.
YES!!! The nature of Wikipedia is that people with agendas will do anything and everything to make their agenda the only one to be heard. The discussion board can help and it’ll turn the tables so the agenda editor are the one banned not you.
Wikipedia has some sort of moderation mechanism it can apply to articles that generate this sort of trench warfare. The mechanism prevents unilateral changes in the articles.
I can’t remember where, but I recently ran across someone else who was having trouble correcting some inaccuracies on Wikipedia regarding numbers in the Episcopal Church. They posted the additions/corrections they made along with citations (and having edited several non-controversial Wiki pages myself, I know they did it correctly), but they continued to have their changes deleted and very nearly got themselves banned. Ahh well.
After revisiting the Episcopal Church page, it looks like the changes finally went through and stuck. I guess you just have to be persisitent
“you just have to be persisitent”
YES!!! The nature of Wikipedia is that people with agendas will do anything and everything to make their agenda the only one to be heard. The discussion board can help and it’ll turn the tables so the agenda editor are the one banned not you.
Yes, well, somebody with more diplomacy and tact than I will have to take on that challenge.
Mrs. Falstaff
Wikipedia has some sort of moderation mechanism it can apply to articles that generate this sort of trench warfare. The mechanism prevents unilateral changes in the articles.
Well, I don’t think it works very well.