[flubert]

Do you? Seems like there should be a xkcd covering this. The usual case as near as I can tell is something like: Make a minor correction to an obvious error, including a link to a source and other wikipedia articles. Edit gets immediately reverted by whoever has declared themselves the guardian of that particular page. Talk page lights up with all sorts of tangential discussion of whether or not this particular subtopic should be corrected or deleted or reworded or something else. Someone else tries making a modification, which again is immediately reverted. People who enjoy the drama have a self-interested desire to perpetuate it. If you are lucky you could go back 6 months later and there's maybe a 50% chance that the original has been corrected (that's if the original topic hasn't come into contact with the non-notable deletionists).

Anyone know when C2 became a javascriptified dumpster fire? Seems like that's a "Day the Music Died" event that should have a date associated with it.

[maccard]

(Not OP) I have in the past, and my experience was that the talk page was civil, my changes were discussed and we came to a common agreement as to what the change should be. Nothing like the fiasco you're describing.

You still haven't answered the question though; do you submit corrections?

[flubert]

>You still haven't answered the question though;

I was never asked a question until now (N.B. the original posters).

> do you submit corrections?

I haven't for years (as in over 5+ years). I'm sure someone will point out it is different now.

[cooper12]

> The usual case as near as I can tell is something like:

Based on this I'm not sure you have edited yourself, despite retorting the parent. First off articles don't have guardians; [0] just because someone disagreed with you, it doesn't mean they disagree with everyone or on every article, you're making a huge generalization. Second, I'm not sure why you see talk page discussion as a bad thing; when two parties disagree on something, they usually discuss and try to reach a consensus. [1] Do you believe you're above that or something?

> Someone else tries making a modification, which again is immediately reverted.

This is called edit warring [2] and shouldn't be done. You shouldn't just try to force your revision in after it has been disagreed with.

All you're doing in your comment is painting up some illusory image to discourage someone from trying to engage the system themselves. How about you let them edit and see for themselves if what you said is true? Based on my experience Wikipedia isn't anything like that at all, in fact most articles aren't watched enough for anyone to care how you tweak them.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring

[FireBeyond]

Yeah, that's a hopelessly optimistic viewpoint, I fear. I have many hundreds or more contributions, but stopped a few years ago.

Tried coming back and immediately ran into edit wars on a list of fastest production cars, when legions of people were eager to get the Tesla on there on the strength of a press-release of an upcoming release. Rules warring, silent reversion, you name it.

Wikipedia Review (though not without its share of cranks, and now largely dead), shares a pretty good history of the more sordid history of WP.

[a3_nm]

When complaining about inadequate behavior from other Wikipedia editors, it would be very useful to point out concrete links to edits and reverts. This gives a chance to other interested parties to fix the article and contribute to the discussion.