Is there someone among us who is given to making needed edits to Esperanto Wikipedia articles? I know in theory anyone can do it, but I would rather merely report such problems and spend my time elsewhere. (In software engineering, finding bugs and fixing bugs are two different functionalities, attended to by two different groups: the testing department and the programming department. I think it it a good idea to extend this principle of separation of “state and crunch” to all developmental enterprises.)
Here is the link.

The general principle behind Wikipedia is that the user who sees necessary changes is the one who changes them. There is a system of asking for articles to be created, but guess what - they don't get written. They only get created when a user is moved to it out of interest.

I've created about 150 articles on Wikipedia and edited hundreds more. When I see something I think should be changed or copy-edited I do it while reading it. I'm the one who thinks it's in error, so why should someone else do that work, or want to? Maybe they would, but seeking people out is even more work than just clicking on "edit" and typing for 10-15-20-30 minutes.

We all have other things to do.

Vestitor:The general principle behind Wikipedia is that the user who sees necessary changes is the one who changes them. There is a system of asking for articles to be created, but guess what - they don't get written. They only get created when a user is moved to it out of interest.

I've created about 150 articles on Wikipedia and edited hundreds more. When I see something I think should be changed or copy-edited I do it while reading it. I'm the one who thinks it's in error, so why should someone else do that work, or want to? Maybe they would, but seeking people out is even more work than just clicking on "edit" and typing for 10-15-20-30 minutes.

We all have other things to do.

1. If Wikipedia’s ‘general principle’ was handed down on stone tablets for everyone to follow, I missed the memo. I would suppose in any case that a more accurate statement of its ‘general principle’ is that the reader has the FREEDOM to make the edit. It seems like you, and some others, want to turn this freedom into an obligation, via shaming. However, as item #35 of the rules of Pope Boniface VIII says:

“The more includes the less. (If one can do a greater thing, the lesser can certainly be done.)”

So, I can report an error without being obligated to fix the error.

2. The reason that the new articles don’t get written – or, more accurately, don’t appear in Wikipedia – might very well be something other than what you suggest.

David Simpson (a fellow Esperantist, by the way) has started his own ‘Nanopedia’ in response to the problem with getting new articles accepted into Wikipedia. You can read his article ‘The Case Against Wikipedia’ here.

3. When you see what you think is a mistake in an article, you never have any doubt that you’re right? Wouldn’t it be nice, at least in some cases, to get a second opinion? You don’t seem to be allowing for shades of grey.

4. ‘seeking people out’ is a bit of an overstatement. It’s more just a matter of running it up the flagpole.

5. Yes, we all have other things to do, but we all also have the right to set our own priorities for our leisure time. Wikipedia is our servant, not our master, and cannot take that right away from us.

That's fine old sport. However, you must surely see that if everyone took that view toward Wikipedia it probably wouldn't exist in the form it does now.

You can report an error without being obligated to fix it, but then you can't expect that someone will come along and fix it.

Now, when I see an error in an article and I re-write it, I'm doing that because I trust I have some knowledge and ability in the subject I'm reading about. If I'm just unsure about certain points, well it's not hard to do a little research, which benefits both me and the article.
In the subject areas where I don't have the knowledge base I'm less likely to spot any factual errors in the first place, apart from spelling and general language issues and these can be fixed.

How can you know that anyone who follows your link has the requisite knowledge or ability to fix the errors you are flagging? It's largely the same situation, apart from the fact that in one of them the errors are actually being addressed. Everything goes in a log anyway and there is a discussion to suggest/discuss large improvements to an article.

Some people have actually given up their time for Wikipedia to make it what it is, without imagining that someone is trying to take away their liberty. When you say "Wikipedia is our servant" what you are unwittingly saying is "the people who write and edit Wikipedia are my servants", but do you want to believe that?

As for Wikipedia's annoying administrators, well that's entirely true. Someone deleted contents from an article I started in 2005 to justify a dispute. Not everyone there is bad, but it's not a benign encyclopaedia operation by any means. However, what then would be the point of directing people there to fix that Esperanto page when their work might come to nought?

Vestitor:That's fine old sport. However, you must surely see that if everyone took that view toward Wikipedia it probably wouldn't exist in the form it does now.

You can report an error without being obligated to fix it, but then you can't expect that someone will come along and fix it.

Now, when I see an error in an article and I re-write it, I'm doing that because I trust I have some knowledge and ability in the subject I'm reading about. If I'm just unsure about certain points, well it's not hard to do a little research, which benefits both me and the article.
In the subject areas where I don't have the knowledge base I'm less likely to spot any factual errors in the first place, apart from spelling and general language issues and these can be fixed.

How can you know that anyone who follows your link has the requisite knowledge or ability to fix the errors you are flagging? It's largely the same situation, apart from the fact that in one of them the errors are actually being addressed. Everything goes in a log anyway and there is a discussion to suggest/discuss large improvements to an article.

Some people have actually given up their time for Wikipedia to make it what it is, without imagining that someone is trying to take away their liberty. When you say "Wikipedia is our servant" what you are unwittingly saying is "the people who write and edit Wikipedia are my servants", but do you want to believe that?

As for Wikipedia's annoying administrators, well that's entirely true. Someone deleted contents from an article I started in 2005 to justify a dispute. Not everyone there is bad, but it's not a benign encyclopaedia operation by any means. However, what then would be the point of directing people there to fix that Esperanto page when their work might come to nought?

Just because I say that Wikipedia is our servant doesn’t mean that those who write for Wikipedia are our servants, any more than saying that computers are our servants means that electrical engineers are our servants. Your attempted misinterpretation otherwise is just one more instance of your apparent agenda of hijacking the other person’s priorities or mode of expression. If neither of those attempts work, you at least, as in this instance, try to put words into their mouth. This is why I consider you to be a troll. Of course, I can’t be sure – you might be just sincerely addle-brained.

That my work might come to naught is one reason I don’t contribute directly to Wikipedia, but I put the information out there in case anyone else wants to take the chance. But the main reason is that – in spite of how simple you seem to want to make it sound – it is a time-consuming rabbit hole that only those who have taken that burden upon themselves can efficiently handle. Also, notice that the errors that I point out are mostly non-controversial typos anyway.

Apparent agenda? Have a cold shower. You mean I contradict some of the things you consider personally important. I get contradicted a lot too, in real life and online (not least in your threads) but I'm neither so insecure nor rude enough to brand you a "troll".

Your explanation of why it might not be worth contributing to Wikipedia is perhaps valid, but then why inflict it upon others if you think it's so awful and time-consuming? Some unwitting person here might go there feeling they are contributing to Esperantujo only to be sucked into the Wikipedia vortex.

Personally I don't think it's quite that bad, but you do and still you're opening the door for people to go in. I, on the other hand, am not doing so.

If you think this is 'hijacking another's mode of expression' then I can only assume you have an inferior capacity for normal reasoning.

mkj1887:Also, notice that the errors that I point out are mostly non-controversial typos anyway.

It's really a cinch to fix those! I can't conceive that just flagging them -- if that were possible -- would be any less time-consuming.

By the way, what's your stance on varieties of English, say British vs. US spelling?

kdl5000:

mkj1887:Also, notice that the errors that I point out are mostly non-controversial typos anyway.

It's really a cinch to fix those! I can't conceive that just flagging them -- if that were possible -- would be any less time-consuming.

By the way, what's your stance on varieties of English, say British vs. US spelling?

https://lernu.net/forumo/temo/23510