| Revision as of 01:14, 20 August 2013 edit50.101.211.33 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:04, 31 July 2014 edit undoN-HH (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,142 edits Not worth the effortNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| The main reason Misplaced Pages is so unreliable and badly written as a source is not the drive-by vandalism but because around 50% of the regular content editors and the administrators are morons. If you think it's bad reading WP pages, try editing them. | |||
| {{Userboxtop}} | |||
| {{User:WereSpielChequers/Userboxes/Greater London}} | |||
| {{Template:user Adult}} | |||
| {{Userboxbottom}} | |||
| An occasional editor who doesn't usually contribute a large amount of original text or material, or start new articles – more likely to be found now and then copy/sub-editing existing text or removing outright the more glaring pieces of random ], ] or ] material they happen to encounter. There's plenty of crap here that Misplaced Pages would be better off losing. Sadly, due to a mildly disputatious nature and a perhaps naïve belief in the ability of rational argument to win out, often to be found over-extended on talk pages from time to time as a result of trying to achieve the above. Most of what I know and understand tends to be in the areas of politics, history, music, films, TV and wine. | |||
| {{Collapse|The biggest problem with Misplaced Pages when it comes to accuracy, reliability and quality is not, as often suggested, the frequent drive-by vandalism and joke edits but the fact that the substantive content of most pages is usually written by only one or two committed contributors, with limited genuine crowd peer review. Many of those editors are well meaning, cognisant of mainstream thinking and knowledgeable about the topic at hand, and able to contribute with an open mind; but many are not – or are only half-way there on each count – and so what you end up with are essays written by the partisan and/or ignorant who've cherry-picked their sources and/or often don't even understand them. Half the articles in the politics sphere for example are basically D- undergraduate essays – and ones written by committee at that – or barely disguised polemical tract. Half the music and arts pages are raging fanboy hyperbole. Why on earth would anyone want to use those as sources of information?<br /> | |||
| Just because many editors have been here a long time and have learnt to use the rules to their advantage, and include references for their additions, doesn't mean they're going to write decent, usable encyclopedia entries – even if they're actually trying to. Misplaced Pages is awash with editors demanding sources for the genuinely uncontroversial while insisting that one source floating a subjective and sometimes idiosyncratic analysis or opinion can stand as a trump card for purported "fact", as well as with those insisting on oversimplifying the genuinely complex while overcomplicating the things that are relatively simple (and who are unable to spot the difference). Anyone with an opinion can usually bring their own "facts" to the table if they try hard enough.|A short essay, for what it's worth ...|bg=#C0C0C0}} | |||
Revision as of 18:04, 31 July 2014
The main reason Misplaced Pages is so unreliable and badly written as a source is not the drive-by vandalism but because around 50% of the regular content editors and the administrators are morons. If you think it's bad reading WP pages, try editing them.