Posts
Yes. I have now edited a Wikipedia article. I didn't even stress over word selection - because it was a number that I corrected. A search of BYU's online catalog listed 26 PhD programs. However the Wikipedia article on BYU listed the number of doctoral programs as 25. [Which makes me wonder how often the other numbers are updated] So I edited it.
Then the turmoil began. I found another reference to the same count later in the document and edited that. After I edited the second count, I noticed that it had a citation, so I checked it (which I should have done BEFORE editing). The citation was from BYU's website. On the web page it mentioned "as of Fall '07", and so I assumed it was accurate for that date. Rather than find a reference that backed my edit from searching and counting, I reverted both of my edits (call me lazy).
Kind of fruitless work, but in the process I discovered that there is a talk page for each Wikipedia article (a wiki with a history) and each editor can also create his/her own talk page as well (also a wiki with a history). So I created my own talk page and explained my two edits that I had promptly reverted. I also added my talk page to my 'watchlist' to see what, if anything, happens. I'm not holding my breath. :-)
2 comments:
I never even thought to try to participate in a wikipedia discussion. Now you've got me wondering if I've shortchanges myself with regards to my wikipedia experience.
Isn't it interesting how much harder it is to write or edit when you have to back up everything you write with solid references? And isn't it infuriating that there are multiple sources of data for the same construct that only occasionally - if ever - agree with each other?
I thought editing Wikipedia was supposed to be easy, since it's a haven of morons who just type whatever they want... =)
Post a Comment