The English Language Wikipedia Just Had Its Billionth Edit (vice.com)
- Reference: 0141275364
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/21/01/19/2156239/the-english-language-wikipedia-just-had-its-billionth-edit
- Source link: https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7appn/the-english-language-wikipedia-just-had-its-billionth-edit
> Just after 1 A.M. on January 12, a prolific Wikiepdian edited the entry for the album Death Breathing. The small edit was the addition of a hyperlink and it [1]was the billionth edit done to the English language Wikipedia . "The article on the album Death Breathing was amended by Wikipedian Ser Amantio di Nicolao, one of over 3.9 million edits done by the Wikipedian with the highest edit count other than bots," said a [2]note in Wikimedia-l , a listserv that documents various Wikimedia matters. Wikipedia relies on volunteers who constantly assess, edit, and argue over the specifics of the information in its vast online encyclopedia. Every edit is catalogued, tagged, and assigned a unique URL when it's pushed through. The Death Breathing edit secured the billionth.
"Pedants may be aware that this is only the thousand million since the move to MediaWiki software and not all of the hundreds of thousands of previous edits have since been reloaded," the notice said. "So if we could work out the true counts since edit one it probably came one, maybe two days earlier."
"I don't have the exact numbers but there were definitely many edits made that aren't recorded in the current system," Wikiepdian "The Cunctator" told Motherboard in an email. "Many of the UseModWiki edits were reintegrated with the history but there is a lacuna that covers my peak of editing in about August 2001 to February 2002 (I was the primary editor of September 11 related content). I don't know if the edit count reflects deleted edits or edits on deleted pages. One point that isn't made enough when discussing Wikipedia is how much of Google's wealth is built on its abuse of Wikipedia copyleft. But Death Breathing got the edit with the thousand million counter."
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7appn/the-english-language-wikipedia-just-had-its-billionth-edit
[2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2021-January/096101.html
Too bad its a collection of cabals now (Score:2)
of people who's lives are so empty they're duty in life is guarding a wikipedia page and woe betide the outsider that steps on the one of territory of one of the cabals. Especially the modern politics cabal. Many of the Admins and mods are also completely insane too and are basically there to get into political catfights. For example I've seen one of the actual (employees) basically for years spends his time openly taunting contributors doing things like literally replying 'Cool story bro' everytime people
Re: (Score:2)
They could easily support the site with ads - cheapskates like me who use an ad blocker were never going to pay for their content anyway! Enough with their guilt trip.
Of particular annoyance is flagging something for deletion because moderators deem it of insignificant notability. Stuff those guys, is Jimmy running out of disk space? If it was sufficiently notable for me to be interested in reading the page then I don't need a self-righteous banner telling me I shouldn't be reading it because it isn't notab
Re: Too bad its a collection of cabals now (Score:2)
Yeah that shits me too. They claim to want to be the holders of the entirety of human knowledge then they go and delete bits that aren't "notable". To whom, they don't say.
Re: (Score:2)
> Stuff those guys, is Jimmy running out of disk space?
Disk space probably isn't a problem, but the number of volunteers is. If there were ten times as many pages would that be spreading the available labor too thinly to counteract the forces of entropy (good faith people with poor language skills, editors riding hobby horses, vandals, etc.)? Also the quality might go way down with a load of half-assed pages if it was really hard to delete them.
> If it was sufficiently notable for me to be interested in reading the page then I don't need a self-righteous banner telling me I shouldn't be reading it because it isn't notable.
So they should delete pages more quickly and then you'd never see the banner!
Re: Too bad its a collection of cabals now (Score:2)
Wikipedia already has craploads of terrible articles. Here's an example of one with numerous errors and omissions:
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_languages_by_type_system
Re: (Score:2)
Only ten edits in two years, and a talk page that was last updated in March 2018. Perhaps that is evidence that there are too few people to support the existing 6.2 million pages.
Soon to be followed by (Score:5, Funny)
The reversion of that edit.
Re: (Score:2)
> "Soon to be followed by... The reversion of that edit."
LOL
Which probably ALSO counts as an edit...
Re:Soon to be followed by .. and now it's gone (Score:2)
The article is now gone, redirecting to the artist page.
Stupid notability guidelines.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Death_Breathing
Re: (Score:2)
That is the most Wikipedia move I've seen of late.
The idea that an Alec Empire side project is non notable is nonsense. Heck even *my* bands get a mention on wikipedia, and I've never had any hits or worked with Bjork, or been considered a father of any genre like he has.
But then "Oh hey this is now the famous page everyone is looking at BETTER REDIRECT IT AWAY. These people can't help themselves.
Embarassing.
Re: (Score:3)
> The reversion of that edit.
I was gonna LOL, but you nailed it. Not only was the edit reverted, the article that had been edited got deleted.
The case file objecting the reverion is still open (Score:2)
Wikipedia is just a gang of angry grumpy white men with an excessive craving for authority.
Who cares (Score:2)
No one gives a fuck over how many times a page was edited, reverted, edited again, etc.
Wikipedia is still shit; run by sock puppets and insecure people.
It had the potential to be great but was destroyed by politics, ego, and greed.
Re: (Score:2)
> ... It had the potential to be great but was destroyed by politics, ego, and greed.
Which is to say, it was accessible to the random idiots on the internet.
Re: Who cares (Score:2)
It's like many Open Sores communities: administered and moderated by zealots. I use the fruits of their labours and lurk on their forums. But, after some efforts to contribute were met with their sanctimonious shit, I stay well away from the head of the beast.
Amazing (Score:2)
Quite amazing.... considering they reject valid, accurate edits (as has been my experience).
Wonder how many of those edits actually survived.
deeper look (Score:1)
And 1/3 of it is emacs versus vi edit battles.
Meta Moderation (Score:2)
I've always wondered why they haven't implemented a meta moderation system to try contain the narcissists that plague Wikipedia.
Question (Score:2)
Which anime page was it?
Re: (Score:1)
"Trump Hentai"