Wikipedia is super-duper awesome! I love how you used to be able to look up and learn anything about anything really fast and easy.
The thing is, dudes, now the ‘pedia has grown into a world-wide-serious mo’fo’, with long articles and really big words. (Kinda not so simple and helpful as it useta’ be, I think, but I’m no WikiDude, so what do I know?)
THAT’s why I wanna come work for you. What d’you say I help you out with your weensy widdle editing problem?
You know–the one where it was perfectly acceptable for a bunch of pathetic loser trolls
to go into the entries of well-known gamers and insert lies about them? And keep doing it, without having their editing privileges revoked?
“Media and gaming culture critic Anita Sarkeesian was called a “lying whore,” and game developer Zoe Quinn was labeled a prostitute. Fellow developer Brianna Wu’s page claimed she gave her husband AIDS because she was raped by her father who first infected her.”
–Lauren C. Williams in Think Progress article “The Five Horsemen of Wikipedia Paid the Price”
I’m thinking if some Bible-totin’ Christian trolls had edited a Muslim married guy’s entry over and over to say he whored around and gave his wife AIDS, you dudes would have done something sooner. Or if skinhead white trolls had targeted a black guy and said those things over and over– Come ON, dudes–what do YOU think!?
But I could be wrong, Wiksters. You are the experts, after all. What I do know is that you lost a lot of editing power, ’cause when you finally DID do something, you not only told the trolls they were naughty and couldn’t edit anymore, but you told your own editors they were naughty too, and couldn’t edit anymore (!).
Shame on them, for repeatedly removing those lame-#ss trolls’ malicious, childish lies!! Bad editors, bad!!
Anyhoo, since you’re down a few editors–and you were already down a hella bunch of lady editor types (less than 15% girl dudes, huh?)–
I’ve checked out your Manual of Style, and it’s all “No problemo” from my end! I’m rarin’ to get started snippin’ and rippin’!
WIKIPEDIA MANUAL OF STYLE EDITING RULES
“Wikipedia articles should be well-written and consistent with the core content policies:”
No original research.
Check! Everything I learn comes straight from others. Or I make it up on the spot.
Neutral point of view.
Check! I’m nothing if not fair and objective. Ask my downstairs neighbor.
Hey, ‘Pedia dudes–Two out of three?
No Weasel Words:
“Research has shown”, “It is often reported”, Many are of the opinion”, etc.
Some people would say you guys are too picky.
No Editorializing Adverbs:
Clearly, Unfortunately, Happily…
Luckily, I don’t use any of the ones you list.
Skip Judgy “Said” Synonyms When You Quote:
Denied, Surmised, Insisted…
If you insist.
No Compounds and Neologisms
(Made-Up Two-part Words or Brand-Spanking New Words)
OMG! I know. ‘Cause, doesn’t it drive you cray-cray when you have to google abbreviations or new expressions you don’t know yet? That’s where that morning dose of Buzzfeed education comes in handy–amirite? BTW, this is such a coincidence,’cause just recently, someone seriously got on my case for using BTW in a blog post and not explaining it.
No Contentious Labels or Puffery
No Derogatory or Complimentary Terms)
Got it, dudes: Aside from listing their deeds, Nelson Mandela and Hitler are to be described in the same breezy, offhand way.
Be Direct. Don’t Use Euphemisms and Idioms.
Except when labeling derogatory or complimentary terms for Wikipedia’s editing style manual (see previous rule).
No worries: Any indirect fishy words and phrases will join their brethren and sistren down in Davy Jones Locker o’ Bones once this straight-talkin’ straight-shootin’ Aspie-girl gets through pickin’ off those perplexing Pisces!
Use Specific Times, Places, and Events.
A WikiPedia Article is Forever.
This one reminds me of a little anecdote:
Oh, don’t worry: I’ll be brief, AND avoid idioms and euphemisms–whatever THEY are! (I’m sure if I don’t know what they are, that must mean I don’t use ’em–am I right? Gotcha there, eh, your WikiNesses–Ha ha ha!)
When I told my BFF yesterday that I planned to apply to WikiPedia, she was sure I was wasting my time.
“YOU? Seriously?! Remember when we drove all the way to T., and you drank all of that —, and then kept me up all night singing? Do you really think you are the sort of person the WikiPeople are looking for?”
Yes. Yes I do.
cray-cray-No one says this any more–do they?
BTW-By the way.
OMG-Oh, my goodness! (golly! gosh!)
SWIDT-See what I did there? (Usually refers to a pun just made.)
APPAIDIX: GETTING PAID TO EDIT FOR WIKIPEDIA
There are bunches of people getting paid by commercial corporations to edit Wikipedia entries–had you known that? You can imagine that they are not motivated purely by public-spirited humanitarianism. Writers are given explicit instructions to fluff up entries or remove negatives.