| ▲ | altmanaltman 4 hours ago |
| Seems like Wikipedia sucks at enforcing its policy from what I am reading? There has to be a better way to do this at that scale than just "oh we forgot to notice it and now its too awkward to remove it"? Maybe i am missing something idk |
|
| ▲ | jasonlotito 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Seems like Wikipedia sucks at enforcing its policy from what I am reading? More like policies evolve and older articles are grandfathered in by the fact that they aren't edited and people aren't going back and reviewing old articles that don't meet the newer standards. > Maybe i am missing something You are. > idk That says it all. |
| |
| ▲ | wavemode 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The broad strokes of what Wikipedia considers notable has not changed significantly in the last 20 years. What has mostly changed is that there are more editors now, and thus more eyes and also more serious discussion (rigor?) about such things. | | |
| ▲ | chris_wot 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do you have proof there are more editors now? By an order of magnitude? Or don’t mean there are people who like to participate in Wikipedia drama and who don’t actively contribute to article creation? |
| |
| ▲ | altmanaltman 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > More like policies evolve and older articles are grandfathered in by the fact that they aren't edited and people aren't going back and reviewing old articles that don't meet the newer standards. Seems like Wikipedia sucks at enforcing its policy from what I am reading? |
|
|
| ▲ | flexagoon 16 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
