• ikidd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly my experience with Archwiki and Wikipedia. I’ve tried to contribute with minor edits and corrections; I get non-stop pushback on the most un-controversial edits of things like punctuation or adding cross-links. I just walked away after a few attempts to satisfy whomever reverts the edits. What’s the point of adding the stress of dealing with these people to one’s life when there is utterly no personal benefit?

    • harmonea@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      While I agree that’s a super frustrating experience, I think you’re projecting an experience you had on one (larger, probably more rigid) site to every site that shares its software. Not every small wiki team is like that.

      When I get a correction on one of my pages, I welcome it. Even when it’s a grammatically incorrect mess, I do my best to incorporate the information added while smoothing out the wording. Even when the correction is outright wrong (there’s one drive-by I used to get every couple months who liked to change singular “die” to “dice” when it wasn’t appropriate) I explain my reversions in notes and offer to discuss if there are any questions, hoping to leave the door open for a future editor, because that’s someone who cared enough to hit the edit button, and I appreciate that.

      So while I get that you’re turned off from the hobby - and that’s a shame - not all of us need a “fucking dissertation” to have decent collaboration.