Would you believe that people are having an edit war over this [1]? Should the article say "Foam takeout containers are typically discarded after the food has been consumed and are rarely [[Recycling|recycled]]" or not? It is a burning issue.
All right, I know: people will war over anything.
Meanwhile, [2] is fun.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Mark Steyn on the trouble he has with facts:
Incidentally, I stopped writing for the [New York] Times a few years ago because their fanatical "fact-checking" copy-editors edited my copy into unreadable sludge.
I think it's some sort of chemical reaction -- add facts to a Mark Steyn column and it…
I was just glancing through the blog of Katheryn Schulz, author of Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error, a book about people who were wrong about stuff, often big stuff (for example, she talks about individuals who spent decades in jail owing to false convictions). Meantime, I'm working…
One of the more annoying fictions promoted by the media is the one about John McCain being a moderate. A plain-speaking independent who states it plain and calls it the way he sees it. Of course, it's long been obvious to anyone who's been paying attention that he's a staunch right-winger, but…
Does Tim Slagle strike anyone else as being a crank?
I feel like we should lend Orac a hand. He's had to deal with the anti-global warming denialism from this guy all on his own. Let's do a take down of this wise man's approach to global warming science.
Let's start with this genius article "…
Wikipedia has a kind of "Hall of Fame" for its lamest edit wars (Shortcut: WP:LEW), and this seems like a probable future candidate for it.
I also fondly remember the day an admin got so fed up with the bickering going on behind the scenes of the "Emo" article that they replaced the whole thing with a redirect to "Elmo". The edit summary was: "corrected obvious typo".
Sic transit gloria Wikipedia.
Anal retention and obsessive micro-edits diminish from its usefulness.
An expert generally knows more and more about less and less. People only want interactional expertise from a (wiki/encylo)pedia and even that at entry level or basic textbook/ vade mecum level.
I don't know much about wikipedia (or the internet for that matter), so let me know if this is ridiculous:
I think it's clear that the statement should be included because 1. It's true, 2. It's short, 3. What else is there to say about those containers?
The only reason not to include the statement, I would guess, is that many other items don't have a comment regarding the frequency with which the are(n't) recycled. Is there pressure for wikipedia articles to be somewhat consistent across topics?
So, this was the "lamest edit war" around? No, this was the case of a TROLL reverting good faith edits and repeatedly choosing to use external links instead of references. Do you deserve to be an adminstrator with such snobbish comments like this? No, I believe you don't. End of story.