[qPM9l3XJrF]

I once came across some Python code on Wikipedia which looked like:

    for i in range(n):
        a = [f(i) for i in range(q)]

I was reading over it and got temporarily confused by the re-use of the variable "i" in the list comprehension so I edited it to something else in order to help the next person. Reverted without explanation.

Another complaint I have about Wikipedia: There are certain people who are sometimes described in the media as "antisemites", "white nationalists", "white supremacists" etc. If it's a reliable source then Wikipedia will describe the person as a white supremacist or whatever. That doesn't bother me a lot.

However, in some cases the person themselves will say something to clarify their view, and a surprising number of Wikipedia editors think that the subject of the article's own statement of their political view does not merit inclusion in the article.

I believe I remember one particular case where there was a person whose Wikipedia bio referred to him as an antisemite, but if you went to his Twitter profile, he used some of the (very limited) space in his Twitter bio to refer to himself as pro-Israel... and a certain senior editor strongly objected to mentioning this fact in his Wikipedia bio.

At that point I think you're effectively just smearing living people in their Wikipedia bios and that really rubs me the wrong way.

The broader issue here is that Wikipedia, due to its reliable sources policy, can't really be much better than journalists are. And journalism isn't what it once was. Same argument for academia and the replication crisis. We live in a society, basically.

[LostTrackHowM]

You not being a reliable source about yourself is an old Wikipedia rule.

I think they are fans of the Brazil movie.

[qPM9l3XJrF]

I guess the rule got changed at some point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-p...

[nsajko]

Your example with the python list comprehension could just be an example of a conflict over content because of an inevitable difference of opinion. There is nothing wrong with that, and no way around it: you either invest enough of your time to work it through, or pay someone else to do that (although I don't know how you could find someone both competent enough and willing to do it).

The example with the antisemite is probably more complicated, if you wanted a discussion on it you should have posted a link to the relevant discussion on Wikipedia, but I very much doubt it would be appropriate to take Twitter as source in that case, because Wikipedia is not meant to be (an extension of) social media. Also, it seems like you are not aware that it is very much possible to be a pro-Israel antisemite, e.g., the Nazis at one point supported Jewish Zionist emmigration to Palestine.

BTW, I am not a Wikipedia apologist, see my next comment.

It is true that low quality journalism limits Wikipedia in certain areas, but also note that good Wikipedia sources are not limited to newspapers, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliab...

[qPM9l3XJrF]

"I very much doubt it would be appropriate to take Twitter as source in that case"

Editors also didn't like it when I added info from his website. Basically, they didn't want anything he said in his own defense to make it to his Wikipedia page.

"Also, it seems like you are not aware that it is very much possible to be a pro-Israel antisemite, e.g., the Nazis at one point supported Jewish Zionist emmigration to Palestine."

I'm aware of that. This person also said he encouraged Jews to join a political organization he ran.

But anyway, I tried to be very clear: I was not saying the citations which claimed this guy was an antisemite should be removed. I'm saying it was worth including this person's own statement of their political views as well.

[Ntrails]

> I'm saying it was worth including this person's own statement of their political views as well.

It is an interesting situation, because I dislike the idea that my defence of my own position is insubmissible, vs the interpretation of some third party of what they claim I think. Certainly there are positions I have on sensitive topics that could be trivially misrepresented.

On the other hand, just taking my 'PR' response is dangerous as it allows me to potentially Rewrite history / spin truth etc.

I lean towards the right to state: "author claims to be misunderstood and accusations are unfounded". I can see both sides a bit though

[pmachinery]

It would be a lot easier to see if Wikipedia had a point or not if you named the public figure you're talking about.