Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies

Redisgn

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In early 2023, Wikipedia redesigned their site to punish competent professionals who still use desktop computers. The new design completely discards the old format for a new one that destroys the linearity of articles and implements reduced line length. The reduction in line length is intended to cater to those with poor reading comprehension, though they did not beta test the design on simple.wikipedia.org for an unknown reason. I put this in talk so as to not get an IP ban from wikipedia. (Reply from User:FizzleDrunk) first of all, Wikipedia has an option built into preferences to revert back its 2010 user interface. Second of all, I have never seen any controversy surrounding the change in design. Third of all, the point you are attempting to make is being done so in a rude and bad faith manner. Fourth of all you should not be complaining about others reading comprehension when you both do not know how to format the talk page and have misspelled “redesign” in your header. Fifth of all, you will not get an IP ban for making such an edit. You will likely have your edit reverted alongside a justification for why.

Proposed merge

Alan Mcilwraith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is an unencyclopedic and mean-spirited biography of an obscure Wikipedia hoaxer. I suggest a minimal merge to the Wikipedia controversy list as an alternative to deletion. Cheers, gnu57 02:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see how this is a controversy. Guy made his bed and will have to lie in it. EEng 02:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, it looks pretty well-referenced to me. It might be better off with some copyediting for tone, but I don't know about a merge. jp×g🗯️ 09:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• There is not presently anything in the article connecting this person to Wikipedia, so no, it shouldn't be merged. I'm skeptical that we should even have such a bio... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  lol yea 2603:6000:AB00:4E1F:A817:5AF2:7F26:C49B (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Rambot an actual controversy?

I was surprised to see the story of Rambot listed as a controversy, as from what the article says about it the bot to me seemed primarily innovative and helpful. So I started looking around, and I could not find any public mention of the Rambot from before Mr Lih wrote about it in a book twelve years after the fact. Not a single public expression of anything, not of it being found controversial, nor of any public support for it. Nothing whatsoever before the publication of mr Lih's book, and also nobody else opining by themselves even after it's publication. Only references to Mr Lih's description.

What I did find however, was a lemma on Wikipedia about bot-history on the site, where it turned out similar bots were being used in several other-language wiki's concerning other countries' administrative divisions, around the same time as Rambot had been used (Wikipedia:History_of_Wikipedia_bots#Small_town_bots).

So with the benefit of hindsight I wonder: was the 2002 use of Rambot actually controversial simply because one person said so in 2014, even if that one person is a serious researcher and author? Or was it actually an innovative thing to do which was primarily accepted practice among the community as soon as it occurred?

I'm not gonna mess with the page, do not see myself as able to judge in this matter, and I am not a very experienced editor. But this listing just seemed weird/off to me. Jutte Brøtbørda (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

All the discussions should still be here, although I will warn anyone who tries to delve into this that page histories start to get real shaky around 2002-01 (people were just discussing stuff on article pages themselves, comments weren't getting signed reliably, etc). It's totally possible that people were hopping mad about it, but it was far before my time. jp×g🗯️ 09:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Add target of Virgil Griffith list

I think that we should add a list because the share number of targets individually listed looks horrible on small devices like phones. Also it's just inconvenient and an eye sore to have such a big block of blue. 91.223.100.28 (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Revert of short description

Hi Babysharkboss2, You reverted a recent edit adding a descriptive and disambiguating short description with the edirt summary WP:SDNONE. Could you clarify what yo mean by this please, as WP:SDNONE is not of itself a reason to remove a suitable short discription. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

"none" is preferred when the title is sufficiently descriptive Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Nomad Vagabond)} 14:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

That is not what it says, and not what it means. Something that WP:Short description actually does say, though, is that the short description is part of the content, and can be edited at any time to improve its usefulness to the reader, which I suggest the new short description does, since it informs the reader that the article is about controversies about Wikipedia, rather than about controversial topics covered by Wikipedia. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

your right, because I wasnt quoting from WP:SDNONE, I was qouting the hidden tab located next to the short desc of this page explaining why we don't need one. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Nomad Vagabond)} 15:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

What hidden tab?

TypistMonkey (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

That makes more sense, but was not obvious, as short descriptions are commonly edited with the gadget which does not show the comment. Anyway, that explains some of the confusion. Back to the point. I suggested that the short description added was better than none, so should stay. It is now a matter of finding consensus for the page. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It is a comment in the wikitext. It should also be visible in VisualEditor. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk)

Unfortunately, the practical issue here is that short descriptions can't be seen or edited in the visual editor. Most editors use the gadget but, as you say, that doesn't show the hidden text, making the addition of such text of limited use. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The text is still useful in annotated links, also just because visual editor still has shortcomings does not mean things should not be done by those who can do them. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The title is sufficiently explanatory, and an additional explanation would not be helpful. The proposal was also overlong. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

[..] overlong what does overlong mean? Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Nomad Vagabond)} 01:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Too long. See WP:SDLENGTH. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Not "too long" Read WP:SDLENGTH. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Clearly we differ on this point. If you see a link to the article in a 'see also' section, you are left wondering whether it is about "Controversies about Wikipedia, its communities, and the Wikimedia Foundation", or controversies covered by articles in Wikipedia. In my opinion the short description clarifies that point. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

A short description is part of the content of an article, if it can be improved, it should be improved. It is a service to the readers and a convenience to the editors. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)