Silverseren

It’s always been suspected that bisexual people (of varying levels on the Kinsey scale) make up a good half of the population. Combine that with all the other possible LGBTQ sexualities and including trans individuals and you would find even 30% to seem rather low.

Those secondary sources often aren’t reliable as well. It depends on the source and its history of accuracy in reporting. There’s plenty of newspapers that have been determined to not be a reliable source, including any tabloids.

It’s also rather inaccurate. One can use a primary source like the DOT for information to add to an article. It’s just that a primary source like that doesn’t contribute to general notability and importance of the subject matter. The subject needs to be shown to have relevance that has been covered in other forms than just primary sources.

The use of primary sources has long been restricted to minimal usage, since primary means any form of self-published claim. And that sort of source shouldn’t contribute to any form of notability.

“Then on the other hand you can find an article on every Pokemon on Wikipedia.”

You’re rather out of date with that claim. Once upon a time, like a decade or more ago, this was true. But when the notability requirements became stricter, the vast majority of Pokemon articles were removed and redirected to list articles. There are currently only 28 articles on individual Pokemon, out of a possible 1021.

I remember this controversy. The highway editors in question were super opposed to any form of referencing requirements for these highway articles that all other Wikipedia articles have to adhere to and wanted individual articles on the most minute small road routes.

When the editing community at large suggested having broader higher level articles that combined these much less notable articles into a bigger article that was more properly referenced and better showcased a level of importance, the highway editors…well, to put it bluntly, had a hissy fit.

It’s fine to request to be kind to those sincerely asking questions they want to know about, but once it’s known and clear that the person is a troll that’s “just asking questions”, there’s no need to be nice anymore.

I hate point 3 whenever it’s used by someone. I’ve seen it used to defend people who had slaves too. It’s like, you know that there were anti-slavery people even back then, right? Heck, there were anti-slavery people back in Roman times.

So if they could see the wrongness of slavery as wrong then, then no one else has that excuse.

It’s just that people don’t want to admit that a large amount, if not an outright majority, of people in history were bad, evil people. Most people were not good. Or, at the very least, they had little empathy for others outside their immediate family.

Um, paint pouring is a long-standing art form, so…not sure you’re making a defensible argument here.

The block “feature” is a required tool for being listed on the Google and Apple stores, among others.

Removing it will get Twitter delisted from them as well.

Too many people have copies of the full database at this point for such a thing to mean much. And there’s too many other versions that have been produced since to matter either.

I left months ago and have been doing my science communication on Mastodon since then. Sure, it sucks having to start over on a new platform, but I had already been doing that since leaving Facebook anyways.

It is if you reveal you’re underaged. But if you keep quiet about it, no one will know. That’s true for the entirety of the internet.

I always work on new articles in my userspace before putting it out into the main article area. Since you’re much more likely to run into conflict if you’re putting out an article with a couple of sentences and one source, even if you’re planning on expanding it, than if you move a more fully formed article into the mainspace all at once.

It’s possible. I’m not a copyright expert, so I have no idea how things like that work and what the potential legal pitfalls are.

I mean, is it surprising that a project aimed at becoming a proper encyclopedia would become stricter on content and raise the standards over time?

Which makes complete sense for pop culture stuff and especially things like Trivia sections that try to be added to a bunch of articles, adding things in like appearances of a historical subject in any and every manga that features them and any TV episode. That’s not really something that’s needed.

It is funny looking back to the earliest articles and how little rules and regulations there were for making them. Including just how loose the reliable source rules were, since there was little oversight on using, say, someone’s blog as a source of information.

Possibly, though Wikipedia and all of its related projects have an 18+ requirement. Likely because of copyright issues, as under 18 year olds legally can’t give up a share-alike license on the content they make.

Though since this is specifically about being an admin and not just an editor on Wikipedia, is this necessarily an issue? A lot of admin activity has become automated since those early days, so you don’t need as many people to deal with vandalism or other forms of backlogs.

I think long-term retention is more the problem. There’s plenty of new editors that show up to do something, but they don’t care about being an editor on broader subjects long-term.

There’s attempts to retain interest more through things like editathons on specific topics, such as with the Women in Red group, that have seen a decent amount of success.