We all make mistakes – don’t we?

Serendipity

We all make mistakes – don’t we?

I've written several hundred journal and newspaper articles. For decades I've written a piece, had it corrected by an editor and then seen the article published. I write hastily, make mistakes, and am very glad the editors are not like me. So when I began writing for Wikipedia 15 years ago, being bold and just publish came as a shock to me. It was the open peer review that helped me cross the line: it’s all in the open, and Wikipedia is really "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". Which also means that your own mistakes are blatantly clear for anyone to see. Do I make mistakes? Sure, everyone does. And if you have made a few hundred thousand edits on Wiki, it is likely that you have made at least a few dozen mistakes. I can even see a pattern in my mistakes.

Stealing copyrighted text. Well, by stealing I mean: taking two paragraphs from a ten year old text that is straight to the point. It's a deadly sin in academia. It happened to me on Wiki at least twice. It happens to others. I hope we all get busted and corrected.
Uploading images with no clear license. It happens a thousand times a month at Wikimedia Commons. It really happens to me too, especially with photos from 1938.
Writing articles about semi-notable people. It happens frequently, especially if you like minor poets and sculptors.
Adding incorrect photographs of people. Mistaken identities occur but why with female chess players? I really thought this Katarina (pictured) was a young Mária Ivánka.

The strength of Wikipedia is the peer review – afterwards

At first I thought the whole "be bold" thing in Wiki was a bit ridiculous. But after years of working in Wikipedia, I see it's one of the main assets of Wikipedia. "Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc." True, really. But the mistakes you then inevitably make need to be corrected by fellow Wikipedians. So don’t be cross if someone tries to improve your text or images. Enjoy. This is one of the most important elements of Wikipedia.

← Previous "Serendipity"

Next "Serendipity" →

In this issue

31 October 2022 (all comments)

Disinformation report

Recent research

Interview

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

It's very weird to me to see the Signpost publishing these rambling, unhelpful "articles". This isn't a print publication, it doesn't need filler material, which is all I can see this as. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I, in contrast, like it. Informative, no. However, I found confusion over this point at edit-a-thons where my students were journalists or, even more, scientists. Eh? The right way is start it, get some help with it, finish it, publish it, and it's done and it's beautiful or it isn't, and that's what the world sees forever. No, in Wikipedia we may keep the draft awhile in the relative obscurity of a page that Google doesn't look for, but then publish when it's reasonably acceptable and all your friends, enemies, and strangers will swoop in, pick it apart, put it back together, and that's what most the world sees except that it keeps changing a few times an hour or year or whatever, so it's never actually finished. Weird, from the POV of someone familiar with the normal course. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh. Way to model wikilove, Beebs. Herostratus (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments. First, about Maria Ivanka -- Tip of my hat to another chess editor. I actually crossed paths with Ivanka at the 1982 National Open (in Texas), I coulda helped you with that photo, if I had been watching.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but what it doesn't say is, anyone can stomp on anyone else's edit in Wikipedia. So Wikipedia doesn't have rules about who can edit, but it does have rules about how editors can behave, and there is actual enforcement; not something you read a lot about, but it happens a lot. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Vysotsky for your interesting and humble article. I very much agree with you that sometimes it's the way articles mutate over time in response to feedback and later reviewers/contributors that makes WP beautiful; and as you mention it's great to see the content that one adds be amended over time - definitely contributes to the richness of my personal experience. Regarding Beeblebrox above, I really like these short form articles; after all, length is no guarantee of quality in any format that I can think of. Tom (LT) (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost needs your help putting together the next issue.

Home

About