Is AARoads notable enough for a Wikipedia article?

Started by hotdogPi, December 26, 2022, 08:26:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

bulldog1979

Quote from: 1 on December 26, 2022, 08:26:08 AM
I don't think it is...

The English Wikipedia requires article subjects to be notable, and the golden rule on that is the General Notability Guideline, which says a subject is notable if there is "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". I can break that down into the three prongs, but suffice it to say, unless there are a bunch of news articles about the website, chapters in books discussing, etc., an article on the website will not be feasible.


formulanone

#26
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 26, 2022, 07:26:34 PM
Quote from: skluth on December 26, 2022, 06:29:07 PM
Wikipedia has a huge amount of road articles. I haven't heard anything about removing them. [...] Does anyone seriously think Wikipedia is going to remove an article about US 66 or the Trans-Canada Highway?

I could see them removing a lot of the individual highway pages. I doubt a page needs to be devoted to WI 108. I wouldn't be surprised to see several pages combined into a more omnibus highway page where several highways of lesser significance (e.g., WI 101-110) are combined into one page.

The problem is that for a lot of minor highways, having length and location data on Wikipedia is the most accessible way of finding that data. Suppose I live in Wisconsin and I need a 108 for the lowest-route number game here, so I need to know whether WI 108 is close to me. Looking it up on Wikipedia is going to be way faster than digging around in whatever WisDOT route log system exists (if there is one–Oklahoma doesn't have anything like that because internally roads are categorized by control section number). Google Maps will sometimes reveal at least the location with a search, but it's hit or miss. Some states still have roadgeek-maintained route logs available, but even at the zenith of roadgeek websites not all states had one.

Given this, a system of "important highways are OK, but minor highways get deleted" is apt to lead to the important highways having no maintainers, since many of the people who currently do the maintaining would find that "compromise" unacceptable, and would just walk out.

15-20 years ago, I would have understood that under the conditions and brevity of the project, Wikipedia would have not needed an entry for say, Alabama State Route 151. For a fledgling "free" project with a need for a lot of storage and huge server demands at a premium, it would be costly. But it should have a record for Interstate 95, US Route 20, or Lincoln Highway, then it would need one for all of the same class for comparison. And the same goes for anything with a semblance of notability; if this is included, you should have that. Likewise for just about anything meeting the same criteria, even if there's not 50 sources for the less-well-known article's subject. But there's not quite the same access demand for minor articles; it might be taking up space, but unless there's a sudden increase in Notability or fame, those particular minor articles aren't being fetched as often to make that much of a difference. Provided the same guidelines are met for inclusion as a more popular article, it shouldn't be ignored on that premise alone.

I've started a few non-road articles which receive a human edit about once a year...and they're allowed to stay. The road community is far more expressive in editing and maintaining its work than...say, the average article on a second-tier racing car which may or may not have run in a now-defunct series. One of the reasons I believe they're permitted is that results, specifications, and function speak largely for themselves; they're not works of art in the sense that public opinion colors their purpose inside the meritocracy of organized competition. A road article is largely the same; public perception would not alter its function and its specifications, especially it is that written and codified into public law. In that case, why not permit them? The purpose of Wikipedia was to let the fans and experts give their expertise, and to permit an equal measure of peer review in return.

webny99

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 26, 2022, 07:06:20 PM
It sounds to me like keeping roads content on Wikipedia should take higher priority than having an entry for the AARoads forum.

I certainly agree with this. I've used Wikipedia here and there to find road-related information (often related to a State Highway) that would often be much harder to find without it.

Scott5114

Funnily enough, 15 years ago, the prevailing mantra was "Wikipedia Is Not Paper". It was generally believed that the more articles the better, since that got the site readers, and thus the thinking was it would result in more editors. The 1,000,000th article was a cause for much celebration.

Now it seems like things are going in the opposite direction and a lot of the more pop-culture-y stuff has been shuffled off to smaller wikis. The fact that many of these wikis are hosted by the for-profit Fandom, Inc., founded by Jimmy Wales, could be salient to those who are more conspiracy-minded.

Quote from: webny99 on December 26, 2022, 08:25:43 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 26, 2022, 07:06:20 PM
It sounds to me like keeping roads content on Wikipedia should take higher priority than having an entry for the AARoads forum.

I certainly agree with this. I've used Wikipedia here and there to find road-related information (often related to a State Highway) that would often be much harder to find without it.

Well, the good news is that a road wiki of some form or fashion will certainly always exist. It's just a question of whether it will be on Wikipedia or...aanother place.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

adventurernumber1

Quote from: webny99 on December 26, 2022, 08:25:43 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 26, 2022, 07:06:20 PM
It sounds to me like keeping roads content on Wikipedia should take higher priority than having an entry for the AARoads forum.

I certainly agree with this. I've used Wikipedia here and there to find road-related information (often related to a State Highway) that would often be much harder to find without it.

I second this. The idea of purging road content from Wikipedia is utterly repulsing and appalling to me. I would want to do whatever possible to keep road content on Wikipedia, as it is too valuable and significant to go without. With that said, it is now evident an AARoads Forum page (on Wikipedia) is probably most certainly discouraged at this time, as apparently some internal site conspirators even think roads as an entire category of being are "useless." I apologize as this site "campaign" hit a nerve with me, but was eye-opening so I can savior all the road content on Wikipedia while it is still here, incase god forbid it disappears. With our hobby and immense interest being so far off the mainstream, it is obviously very common and no surprise at this point to see people perplexed (at least at first, if they're unfamiliar) with the whole world of roadgeekery. So confused people I have seen, yes, but never before have I really seen such a toxic movement so antagonizing and vindictive to roadgeekery itself. That is quite scary, and it is my sincere hope it subsides soon. [/rant]  :eyebrow:
Now alternating between different highway shields for my avatar - my previous highway shield avatar for the last few years was US 76.

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/127322363@N08/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-vJ3qa8R-cc44Cv6ohio1g

MikeTheActuary

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 26, 2022, 08:33:01 PM
Well, the good news is that a road wiki of some form or fashion will certainly always exist. It's just a question of whether it will be on Wikipedia or...aanother place.

Considering the variety of fandom/hobby wikis out there....I think an argument could be made that a decent portion of the roadgeek-flavored content could be moved to a non-Wikipedia wiki.

My preference would be for it to remain on Wikipedia, and I would find it logically inconsistent for roadgeek content to be removed, while extensive information related to planespotting, transit-geeking, or various television or fictional literature is retained.....but if there were a general move to push some hobbyist fluff to alternate venues, it would be consistent for roadgeek content to follow that trend.

rschen7754

Quote from: skluth on December 26, 2022, 06:29:07 PM
Wikipedia has a huge amount of road articles. I haven't heard anything about removing them. Several of the articles selected for possible deletion include a lot of unsourced articles and others featuring obscure people. Things that look important like the 2014 World Cup Awards duplicate info found in other articles. I seriously doubt they're going to remove all the road articles; that sounds more like some new urbanist wacko plot with a few overloud squeaky transit wheels. Does anyone seriously think Wikipedia is going to remove an article about US 66 or the Trans-Canada Highway?

I could see them removing a lot of the individual highway pages. I doubt a page needs to be devoted to WI 108. I wouldn't be surprised to see several pages combined into a more omnibus highway page where several highways of lesser significance (e.g., WI 101-110) are combined into one page.

But I'm not interested in writing a AA Roads page myself. Like others, I don't want the hassle.



It's one of those things where we won't know if they are going to be successful until it is too late. What I can categorically say is that in over 15 years of editing (almost all of them as an admin) I have never seen so many determined people believing so many convincing misinterpretations of policy while holding significant positions of power.

There are other advantages of Wikipedia, namely the infrastructure - there are thousands of our articles that have been translated into other languages, and thousands of articles on other large Wikipedias that have yet to be translated into English. Plus a large base of photos and shields to use. At some point of course, the advantages are outweighed by the disadvantages and I know that is something we are each working through on our own.

As far as the secrecy (i.e. why this was not mentioned beforehand) - it's not just the policy on Wikipedia against canvassing on external sites for support, but I am hesitant to disclose our strategy on a publicly accessible forum.

Scott5114

Unlike the kind found in the real world, WP:CANVASS is rather useless as an art medium or as shelter when camping.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

hbelkins

I'm one of those who has long been skeptical of Wiki, so honestly I don't see the point in having an entry for this forum there.

But I have to ask, given a widespread perception of the overall socio-political leanings of Wiki as an institution -- is it possible the anti-roads attitude that has been mentioned is part of a larger anti-car, pro-transit, anti-fossil-fuel agenda?

Since I have no knowledge of the internal workings of Wiki, and some of you do, that's why I ask. But after reading some of these posts, I get the feeling that Wiki is some sort of secret society -- what happens in Wiki stays in Wiki. Why else would one be reticent to discuss those things here?


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

rschen7754

Quote from: hbelkins on December 27, 2022, 12:22:28 AM
I'm one of those who has long been skeptical of Wiki, so honestly I don't see the point in having an entry for this forum there.

But I have to ask, given a widespread perception of the overall socio-political leanings of Wiki as an institution -- is it possible the anti-roads attitude that has been mentioned is part of a larger anti-car, pro-transit, anti-fossil-fuel agenda?

Since I have no knowledge of the internal workings of Wiki, and some of you do, that's why I ask. But after reading some of these posts, I get the feeling that Wiki is some sort of secret society -- what happens in Wiki stays in Wiki. Why else would one be reticent to discuss those things here?

Maybe, but even as pro-road as I am I've never been one that supported holding back if there are obvious racial/socioeconomic consequences of building the road that the sources state.

Or perhaps (most of, I realize some in this forum are probably young enough) Gen Z doesn't see maps in the same way and they think that it is some sort of complex tool that has no objective meaning.

Wikipedia has long had its own forums, IRC channels, etc. which tend to consume editors' time, though I personally have been a fan of AARoads since the mid-2000s.

LilianaUwU

If I see an article go up about AARoads, there's a good chance I'll nominate it for speedy deletion.
"Volcano with no fire... Not volcano... Just mountain."
—Mr. Thwomp

My pronouns are she/her. Also, I'm an admin on the AARoads Wiki.

Alps


Scott5114

#37
Quote from: hbelkins on December 27, 2022, 12:22:28 AM
I'm one of those who has long been skeptical of Wiki, so honestly I don't see the point in having an entry for this forum there.

But I have to ask, given a widespread perception of the overall socio-political leanings of Wiki as an institution -- is it possible the anti-roads attitude that has been mentioned is part of a larger anti-car, pro-transit, anti-fossil-fuel agenda?

Since I have no knowledge of the internal workings of Wiki, and some of you do, that's why I ask. But after reading some of these posts, I get the feeling that Wiki is some sort of secret society -- what happens in Wiki stays in Wiki. Why else would one be reticent to discuss those things here?

A wiki is just a type of software. So this post reads as "I get the feeling that Spreadsheet is some sort of secret society" or "I'm one of those who has long been skeptical of Website" or "given a widespread perception of the overall socio-political leanings of Database as an institution" or "I have no knowledge of the internal workings of Word Processor".

There are no socio-political leanings of Wikipedia. You can include anything you want as long as you have a citation to "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Other than that, Wikipedia has a policy of maintaining a neutral point of view. You can disbelieve that all you like, but given how much grief the community gives you for even stating a road is scenic (that's an opinion and thus does not maintain neutral point of view), I find it hard to believe that a  "socio-political leaning" exists (unless, of course, you've just run out of things to be upset about and have to invent a new one).

There is no man behind the curtain here. This has to do with people with policy boners. You know, like a cashier that won't let you take 11 items through the 10 items or less line even when you're the only one in the store. Or cops that write you a ticket for 51 in a 50. Or a boss that writes you up for clocking in at 9:01.

As for the question of "Why would one be reticent to discuss those things here?", it's because of the canvassing policy. In the early days of Wikipedia, it was commonplace that if an article for Foo was up for deletion, its author would go to the Foo fan forum and recruit everyone to mob Wikipedia with votes to keep the article for reasons having to do mostly with how much they liked Foo and not whether having an article about Foo was within the bounds of Wikipedia policy. The canvassing policy provides a means to exclude such comments from consideration.

As with all other Wikipedia policies, if you can catch your opponent violating the canvassing policy, you can then go and raise hell on the admin noticeboard and rope everyone into a timewasting discussion about your conduct–which of course means that your opponent can't use that time to change things to their liking. I think rschen's probably being a little overly cautious not wanting to discuss things here, but in so doing he's trying to avoid any unwarranted accusations that he's recruiting people to get involved in discussions on-wiki.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

rschen7754

#38
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 27, 2022, 12:48:06 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 27, 2022, 12:22:28 AM
I'm one of those who has long been skeptical of Wiki, so honestly I don't see the point in having an entry for this forum there.

But I have to ask, given a widespread perception of the overall socio-political leanings of Wiki as an institution -- is it possible the anti-roads attitude that has been mentioned is part of a larger anti-car, pro-transit, anti-fossil-fuel agenda?

Since I have no knowledge of the internal workings of Wiki, and some of you do, that's why I ask. But after reading some of these posts, I get the feeling that Wiki is some sort of secret society -- what happens in Wiki stays in Wiki. Why else would one be reticent to discuss those things here?

A wiki is just a type of software. So this post reads as "I get the feeling that Spreadsheet is some sort of secret society" or "I'm one of those who has long been skeptical of Website" or "given a widespread perception of the overall socio-political leanings of Database as an institution" or "I have no knowledge of the internal workings of Word Processor".

There are no socio-political leanings of Wikipedia. You can include anything you want as long as you have a citation to "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Other than that, Wikipedia has a policy of maintaining a neutral point of view. You can disbelieve that all you like, but given how much grief the community gives you for even stating a road is scenic (that's an opinion and thus does not maintain neutral point of view), I find it hard to believe that a  "socio-political leaning" exists (unless, of course, you've just run out of things to be upset about and have to invent a new one).

There is no man behind the curtain here. This has to do with people with policy boners. You know, like a cashier that won't let you take 11 items through the 10 items or less line even when you're the only one in the store. Or cops that write you a ticket for 51 in a 50. Or a boss that writes you up for clocking in at 9:01.

As for the question of "Why would one be reticent to discuss those things here?", it's because of the canvassing policy. In the early days of Wikipedia, it was commonplace that if an article for Foo was up for deletion, its author would go to the Foo fan forum and recruit everyone to mob Wikipedia with votes to keep the article for reasons having to do mostly with how much they liked Foo and not whether having an article about Foo was within the bounds of Wikipedia policy. The canvassing policy provides a means to exclude such comments from consideration.

As with all other Wikipedia policies, if you can catch your opponent violating the canvassing policy, you can then go and raise hell on the admin noticeboard and rope everyone into a timewasting discussion about your conduct–which of course means that your opponent can't use that time to change things to their liking. I think rschen's probably being a little overly cautious not wanting to discuss things here, but in so doing he's trying to avoid any unwarranted accusations that he's recruiting people to get involved in discussions on-wiki.

A lot of it is that, but I'd also rather not reveal strategy or contingency plans on a public website for fear of showing our entire deck of cards to those who are causing all these issues. (I'd rather not be playing this game of chess, but unfortunately that is what it is right now).

US 89

Quote from: hbelkins on December 27, 2022, 12:22:28 AM
But I have to ask, given a widespread perception of the overall socio-political leanings of Wiki as an institution -- is it possible the anti-roads attitude that has been mentioned is part of a larger anti-car, pro-transit, anti-fossil-fuel agenda?

Almost certainly not. In addition to what Scott said above, Wikipedia also has an article for basically every transit station in existence. These same types of people also would want to get rid of those.

Why people want to remove well-sourced content that they don’t find interesting, I have no idea. I don’t give a shit about a lot of what’s on Wikipedia and I might think some of it is a waste of time, but if people want to maintain that stuff and can source it, why would I reject those contributions? More power to them.

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 27, 2022, 12:48:06 AM
There are no socio-political leanings of Wikipedia. You can include anything you want as long as you have a citation to "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Other than that, Wikipedia has a policy of maintaining a neutral point of view. You can disbelieve that all you like, but given how much grief the community gives you for even stating a road is scenic (that's an opinion and thus does not maintain neutral point of view), I find it hard to believe that a  "socio-political leaning" exists (unless, of course, you've just run out of things to be upset about and have to invent a new one).

I am actually not sure I entirely agree with that statement. Any writing anywhere will be skewed to some degree by the personal views of the author(s). Stating a road is scenic as an opinion is simple to deal with because it’s easy to check and see if other people or published sources have said the same thing. Obviously a neutral point of view is the goal, but teasing out every last ounce of implicit bias is hard to pull off. Wiki does a good job at it but it is very difficult to eliminate completely.

rschen7754

Quote from: US 89 on December 27, 2022, 01:32:55 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 27, 2022, 12:48:06 AM
There are no socio-political leanings of Wikipedia. You can include anything you want as long as you have a citation to "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Other than that, Wikipedia has a policy of maintaining a neutral point of view. You can disbelieve that all you like, but given how much grief the community gives you for even stating a road is scenic (that's an opinion and thus does not maintain neutral point of view), I find it hard to believe that a  "socio-political leaning" exists (unless, of course, you've just run out of things to be upset about and have to invent a new one).

I am actually not sure I entirely agree with that statement. Any writing anywhere will be skewed to some degree by the personal views of the author(s). Stating a road is scenic as an opinion is simple to deal with because it's easy to check and see if other people or published sources have said the same thing. Obviously a neutral point of view is the goal, but teasing out every last ounce of implicit bias is hard to pull off. Wiki does a good job at it but it is very difficult to eliminate completely.

I would say that a number of administrators are pretty outspokenly of a certain political viewpoint, given some recent internal events that I have noticed (unrelated to roads). However, that's not to say that they all are. (I know that political discussion is frowned upon here). I am not aware that this bias has necessarily extended to content, given the level of scrutiny of page histories by everyone, including anonymous/IP editors.

That being said, the English Wikipedia editor base does consist of Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand, as well as some assorted editors from other countries, which does add to the political diversity.

Bruce

FWIW, there's also a number of train articles that have been deleted in recent purges of low-quality content. And bus coverage gets trimmed for being fancruft (and rightly so).

As for the other discussions about why articles are getting purged: it's true that Wikipedia would have no issue hosting all those extra pages on their server space. But there's limited capacity in what volunteer editors can monitor and maintain without stretching themselves impossibly thin. At any given time, there's only a few thousand active editors and 6 million+ articles. I've come across several long-unnoticed hoaxes that have persisted and disseminated into the wider Internet, which can cause a fun cycle called citogenesis (where Wikipedia will cite another website that sourced inaccurate information from a Wikipedia hoax).

JoePCool14

There is absolutely bias on Wikipedia. The idea of Wikipedia itself isn't inherently biased, but if the majority of people running it are, then it becomes biased in practice. Compare the opening sections for Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Whether you like one or the other (or neither), there is a clear difference in the tone of these two articles. I don't think Wikipedia should hold a monopoly on information. I like Wikipedia, but I also hate Wikipedia, especially in its beyond obnoxious calls for donations. And I never use Wikipedia for political information.




AARoads probably doesn't deserve or need its own article. I think we're almost all in consensus of that. That doesn't mean AARoads isn't a useful website though.

Now, I think there's credence to the idea of branching road information onto its own wiki-style site. If it's well-written and comprehensive enough, and has a good brand (i.e., name), it can become the go-to source for highway information. To me, the gold standard of independent wikis has always been the Minecraft Wiki. Everyone in the community knows about it, there's a solid base of people helping to maintain it, and the information is high quality. I think an independent road wiki could be quite successful, if there's enough volunteers to maintain it.

:) Needs more... :sombrero: Not quite... :bigass: Perfect.
JDOT: We make the world a better place to drive.
Travel Mapping | 60+ Clinches | 260+ Traveled | 8000+ Miles Logged

ran4sh

Quote from: Bruce on December 27, 2022, 01:58:35 AM
But there's limited capacity in what volunteer editors can monitor and maintain without stretching themselves impossibly thin. At any given time, there's only a few thousand active editors and 6 million+ articles.

This is part of why WP needs to focus on editor retention IMO. There's an essay on WP that I've seen several times, "there is no justice", basically saying that treating different editors fairly for the same thing will not be done on WP, ostensibly because decisions are made based on "what's best for the encyclopedia". But the problem is that those people aren't considering that unfair treatment drives away editors which is obviously not good for the encyclopedia.

I have no idea why WP hesitates to adopt solutions that actually work in real life. Such as policy that can be cited, precedent that is adhered to unless the community clearly determines that it should be changed, etc
Control cities CAN be off the route! Control cities make NO sense if signs end before the city is reached!

Travel Mapping - Most Traveled: I-40, 20, 10, 5, 95 - Longest Clinched: I-20, 85, 24, 16, NJ Tpk mainline
Champions - UGA FB '21 '22 - Atlanta Braves '95 '21 - Atlanta MLS '18

1995hoo

I perceive a definite anti-US bias pervading a lot of Wikipedia, too. I recently saw an edit summary that was meant to say "De Americanization" (though it was misspelled).

There are some people there who are experts on all the policies and know all the ins and outs of the various rules, many of which are things most people will never have encountered and don't know about, and who will then want to lecture you if you violate one of them.

Regarding coverage of roads on Wikipedia, to some extent I think a lot of road articles suffer from the same problem that a lot of other articles often have–too much trivial minute detail, which is always an issue on Wikipedia generally.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

SectorZ

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 27, 2022, 12:48:06 AM
There are no socio-political leanings of Wikipedia. You can include anything you want as long as you have a citation to "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Other than that, Wikipedia has a policy of maintaining a neutral point of view. You can disbelieve that all you like, but given how much grief the community gives you for even stating a road is scenic (that's an opinion and thus does not maintain neutral point of view), I find it hard to believe that a  "socio-political leaning" exists (unless, of course, you've just run out of things to be upset about and have to invent a new one).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia

I want to believe you on this, but some researchers have done the legwork that confirms there is a slight leftward bias that does more move neutral as the page goes through more revisions.

Now, those leanings aren't built into wikipedia, it just appears that the contributors are more likely to have such leanings until enough people contribute and start to drown them out.

JoePCool14

Quote from: SectorZ on December 27, 2022, 11:50:47 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 27, 2022, 12:48:06 AM
There are no socio-political leanings of Wikipedia. You can include anything you want as long as you have a citation to "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Other than that, Wikipedia has a policy of maintaining a neutral point of view. You can disbelieve that all you like, but given how much grief the community gives you for even stating a road is scenic (that's an opinion and thus does not maintain neutral point of view), I find it hard to believe that a  "socio-political leaning" exists (unless, of course, you've just run out of things to be upset about and have to invent a new one).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia

I want to believe you on this, but some researchers have done the legwork that confirms there is a slight leftward bias that does more move neutral as the page goes through more revisions.

Now, those leanings aren't built into wikipedia, it just appears that the contributors are more likely to have such leanings until enough people contribute and start to drown them out.

Also, certain articles end up marked as "protected" which prevents anyone from trying to balance, correct, or remove biased claims or statements. For me, it's the subtlety of the bias throughout.

:) Needs more... :sombrero: Not quite... :bigass: Perfect.
JDOT: We make the world a better place to drive.
Travel Mapping | 60+ Clinches | 260+ Traveled | 8000+ Miles Logged

roadman65

Aren't there enough people on here who can make this happen? I know one in particular on here is and I'm sure there are more than him.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: roadman65 on December 27, 2022, 12:07:39 PM
Aren't there enough people on here who can make this happen? I know one in particular on here is and I'm sure there are more than him.

I mean, I could go back to editing Wikipedia articles.  Trouble is that I really don't want to do things by committee or be restricted on how much content I can add.  For example, the blog I did on CA 1 in Big Sur has 597 images (about half are historic images).  Something even a fraction of that size would never fly on Wikipedia.

hbelkins

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 27, 2022, 12:48:06 AM

A wiki is just a type of software. So this post reads as "I get the feeling that Spreadsheet is some sort of secret society" or "I'm one of those who has long been skeptical of Website" or "given a widespread perception of the overall socio-political leanings of Database as an institution" or "I have no knowledge of the internal workings of Word Processor".

Actually, I've heard this argument before, which is why I capitalized Wiki.

Some may not realize it, or want to admit it, but "Wiki" has become a synonym for "Wikipedia," the same as "Q-tip" has for "cotton swab" or "Band-Aid" for "small adhesive bandage."


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.