Who gave you that rank? Do you get monies?
Comment on WrestleMania was running wild on you
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Wikipedia senior here to answer your dumbest Wikipedia-related questions.
ddplf@szmer.info 3 weeks ago
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
They’re based on edit count and not something meant to be taken seriously. I don’t get any money.
ddplf@szmer.info 3 weeks ago
Ok, here goes another - are you aware that I’m gonna tag you a senior wikipedia editor on my lemmy app and thus gonna be reminded of who you really are each time I come across you?
Empricorn@feddit.nl 3 weeks ago
who you really are
I don’t think this actually gives you additional insight into their life, lol. We still don’t know the important questions: Do they fart when they sit down? How many chinchillas do they own? What’s their favorite medieval weapon? If they could en passant in real life, when would they use it?
AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It’s a title given to Spanish editors I think.
TheBat@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Why did it take Wikipedia so long to add dark mode?
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I’m going to refer you to Wikipedia’s newspaper The Signpost, but if there’s jargon in there that makes no sense, I can clarify. The TL;DR is that the skin Vector (2022) (an update from Vector (2010)) made the interface more flexible to stuff like this, logged-out users could now have preferences, and Wikipedia’s design was all over the place after 20 years of largely decentralized development.
ayyy@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
How do you feel about the Foundation using most of the money on Not-Wikipedia and then making highly misleading statements when the do fundraising drives on Wikipedia?
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
most of the money on things that are Wikipedia
Assuming you meant “aren’t Wikipedia”, there are a few aspects to this.
- These are the Wikimedia Foundation’s 2024 financial statements.
- You can see how it’s organized here.
- Here’s a table of salaries. CEO Katherine Maher’s salary is about $790,000, which is very average for this role. Other salaries look average as well.
- I permanently hide donation drive banners in my preferences and so can’t speak to how they’ve been lately (read: last 8-ish years). I remember them being terrible. Genuinely hated them.
- Wikimedia is a lot bigger than just the English Wikipedia; it’s a movement, and one that’s been highly successful in a way it couldn’t have been just through volunteer work. For example, I heavily encourage you to check out Wikipedia’s sister projects sometime. Not all of them are created equal, but Wiktionary for example to me is the best single dictionary in the world. I wish many of these received similar levels of appreciation to Wikipedia. And far from being tacked-on side projects, most of these factor into a coherent ecosystem in their own way.
- The WMF’s legal team in my eyes especially has been phenomenal. The movement I volunteer so many hours for would be heavily fractured and probably dead in the water if it weren’t for them.
- On top of obvious things like developing MediaWiki, I actively want the WMF to be doing outreach through programs like grants. If the WMF just sits by and coasts on hosting costs and maybe MediaWiki bug fixes, it will die. Figuring out how to make editing more inviting, more accessible, and more efficient is crucial not just to keeping Wikipedia alive but its sister projects and even to improving other non-WMF wikis.
In summary, I don’t like the banners but have seen zero issue with how they handle finances. The money donated that’s used beyond maintaining a skeleton crew and keeping the lights on is profoundly useful to me as an editor and directly helps me write the articles that the people donating expect their money to go to.
BootLoop@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
You must have a script to make everything past tense when they kick the can, no?
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Sometimes you’d think so. It’s actually more delayed than you’d think; major celebrities are often several minutes between major article publication and edit, when theoretically you could speedrun that kind of edit with a source in about two minutes from time of reading the article.
You might’ve seen this, but the editor who changed Henry Kissinger to “was” became such a social media phenomenon that day that her talk page was flooded with “congratulations”. An administrator (being responsible, tbf) had to step in and remove gravedancing, my own included.
Shame this kind of edit isn’t consistent or “Was%” would be a really fun speedrun.
SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I think it’s important that Wikipedia remain unbiased and factual.
It just happens to be a fact that kissinger’s death was worthy of celebration.
Zink@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
If a public figure dies and some people have good things and bad things to say about them, that is just life.
If a public figure dies and a significant and diverse segment of the population want to dance on their grave and fight over who gets to celebrate their death the most, then that sounds like something of historical significance to me.
BigBananaDealer@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
favorite edit you ever made?
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I don’t have a specific favorite singular edit. If I did, it’d have to be the time I nominated ‘David Joyner (business executive)’ for deletion shortly after the killing of Brian Thompson. Whereas I could’ve waited for things to cool down, I didn’t want to politick. This circulated around BlueSky, well-meaning people who didn’t understand how we handle article inclusion brigaded the discussion, and some moron writing for Gizmodo accused me personally of being a paid CVS shill conspiring to hide Joyner’s name (despite the fact that Joyner’s name was proudly displayed on CVS’ website as the first result in a search engine). The situation was just so stupid.
Favorite series of edits? Definitely the time in 2021 I started a good article review for the article ‘Marjorie Taylor Greene’ and it got so out-of-hand that I ended up overhauling the entire thing because I kept finding problems (well outside the scope of a GA review). I thought it was really good by the time I was done, and it was really satisfying reading an article where MTG bitched at some local rally about her Wikipedia article – a sign I’d done something right.
These two examples aren’t representative of my edits at all.
shneancy@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Ozzy Osbourne’s death was first announced to UK media, first article i could find came from the BBC and released 8:11pm
how is it that a Wikipedia editor outsprinted the first article and made the first death edit at 8:08pm?
Saleh@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
Obviously someone in the BBC was salty that he didn’t get to write the article on Ozzies death, so he quickly edited it in the Wikipedia so he could claim the “first” bragging rights.
shneancy@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
what is still strange to me is that the BBC article was one of those coverages they do - where they update the page as new information flows in (or they just decide to say something more). and the first part of that at 8:11pm is just a short paragraph
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Some of it’s going to be down to a major news org like the BBC being much more careful to make sure he’s really dead. With Wikipedia, that’s a fuck-up, but almost anyone can make it, and it can easily be undone. With the BBC, that kind of fuck-up would haunt them for years. I’ve also read that Sky News may have been the first to confirm his death. Looking at that edit, the editor didn’t mention a source; they just "was"d him. Bad practice by Wikipedia’s standards but worked out in the end.
I think it’s a point of pride that we can be so up-to-date, but as a tertiary source, we rely on the credibility of secondary sources like the BBC to have any semblance of usability and order. I think we’re running different races, and we couldn’t run ours if they didn’t run theirs.
shneancy@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
ahh fair alright, Sky News released a short article at 8:05pm
when looking for it it was difficult to dig through a billion copy pasted sources, half of which were paywalled or "tUrN oFf yOuR aDbLocK"walled :')