Olympic articles and contributors on Wikipedia

[MantaRaymarc 132]

1 hour ago, Griff88 said:

Ahhh Sportsfan1234

He deleted his user page so it's harder to find him

He requested to delete his own user page for everyone’s sake but his attitude towards the editors remain the same. 

[MantaRaymarc 132]

1 hour ago, Vektor said:

This is just another example how Wikipedia is fucked up. It controls the knowledge of millions and millions, maybe billions of people. The editors and admins have an insane amount of power in their hands, and they are just some random folks who happen to have free time to edit and control Wikipedia. It's too much power in the hands of anonym people. The concept of Wikipedia is great, but it became too big and too popular for its own good and now it's viewed as the #1 source of information by huge number of people. 

This is truthfully marked by a sad reality for many of us editors whenever we contribute solely to the project. Admins and editors entrusted by them have abused their authority to override our edits and place our status on the degrees of probation and infraction. 

[Griff88 1,952]

1 hour ago, MantaRaymarc said:

He requested to delete his own user page for everyone’s sake but his attitude towards the editors remain the same. 

The thing is, those who create Wiki articles for multi sport event results are under the mercy of strict admins and some d--khead editors who know what rules to exterminate you.

 

Arguing against the deletion of multi sport event results articles is notoriously hard, you are basically coming into a football match with 0-3 deficit.

 

If someone wanted to, they can just argue with either WP:NOTSTATBOOK, WP:NOTABLE, or accusing for bias. When we say we are creating for everyone's benefit, they say you are treating Wikipedia as your own site and breaking the rules because only you who think it is notable.

 

This problem is not exclusive to the Wikipedia, in all collaborative cataloging sites you will meet such people. Don't let this make you so stressed.

[mpjmcevoy 362]

17 minutes ago, Griff88 said:

The thing is, those who create Wiki articles for multi sport event results are under the mercy of strict admins and some d--khead editors who know what rules to exterminate you.

 

Arguing against the deletion of multi sport event results articles is notoriously hard, you are basically coming into a football match with 0-3 deficit.

 

If someone wanted to, they can just argue with either WP:NOTSTATBOOK, WP:NOTABLE, or accusing for bias. When we say we are creating for everyone's benefit, they say you are treating Wikipedia as your own site and breaking the rules because only you who think it is notable.

 

This problem is not exclusive to the Wikipedia, in all collaborative cataloging sites you will meet such people. Don't let this make you so stressed.

Wikipedia might be greatly improved if editors had some limited right to bar certain superusers from amending them - that way no one person could get all that powr, and notorious bullies could be detected.

 

The other answer, of course, would be to begin a proper SportsWiki of your own which had a looser rule set specifically on statbook, primary sources, crystal balling and notability 

[mpjmcevoy 362]

Just now, mpjmcevoy said:

Wikipedia might be greatly improved if editors had some limited right to bar certain superusers from amending them - that way no one person could get all that powr, and notorious bullies could be detected.

 

The other answer, of course, would be to begin a proper SportsWiki of your own which had a looser rule set specifically on statbook, primary sources, crystal balling and notability 

Indeed, totallympics might be a good place for such a thing, to complement the forums...

[MantaRaymarc 132]

2 minutes ago, mpjmcevoy said:

Wikipedia might be greatly improved if editors had some limited right to bar certain superusers from amending them - that way no one person could get all that powr, and notorious bullies could be detected.

 

The other answer, of course, would be to begin a proper SportsWiki of your own which had a looser rule set specifically on statbook, primary sources, crystal balling and notability 

I recently found the Olympics wiki site at Fandom.com. This is less strict and more lenient than the current Wikipedia. Users can create and edit an article without getting troubled though they should be abided by rules and guidelines in the site that govern them.

[Sindo 1,504]

3 minutes ago, mpjmcevoy said:

Indeed, totallympics might be a good place for such a thing, to complement the forums...

We already have a "results database" where we add results: https://totallympics.com/forums/forum/161-results-database/

 

But right now it is not very developed because of the limited resources, there is basically only one user adding results on a daily basis and we only focus on present and future results, not the past ones.

 

But should someone be interested to take charge of a project like that, for sure I would support it!

[MantaRaymarc 132]

34 minutes ago, Griff88 said:

The thing is, those who create Wiki articles for multi sport event results are under the mercy of strict admins and some d--khead editors who know what rules to exterminate you.

 

Arguing against the deletion of multi sport event results articles is notoriously hard, you are basically coming into a football match with 0-3 deficit.

 

If someone wanted to, they can just argue with either WP:NOTSTATBOOK, WP:NOTABLE, or accusing for bias. When we say we are creating for everyone's benefit, they say you are treating Wikipedia as your own site and breaking the rules because only you who think it is notable.

 

This problem is not exclusive to the Wikipedia, in all collaborative cataloging sites you will meet such people. Don't let this make you so stressed.

Exactly. This happens to the case of NOC articles for Paris 2024 on Wiki. Sportsfan 1234 insisted to reject the redirected articles and those far from the correct source standards. For instance, I created Eritrea at the 2024 Summer Olympics article with sources and he simply filed it for deletion because it does not merit the WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV guidelines. So confusing and harsh. Not kidding.

Edited June 29, 2023 by MantaRaymarc

[Griff88 1,952]

34 minutes ago, mpjmcevoy said:

Wikipedia might be greatly improved if editors had some limited right to bar certain superusers from amending them - that way no one person could get all that powr, and notorious bullies could be detected.

 

The other answer, of course, would be to begin a proper SportsWiki of your own which had a looser rule set specifically on statbook, primary sources, crystal balling and notability 

The latter would be the best option, Wikipedia in some areas are already too broken imo

[JoshMartini007 2,536]

You'd have to be very careful with any kind of "SportsWiki" minus a lot of rules. Wikipedia is already plagued with many sport-related stubs and half done articles because the only person working on them ran out of time or went on to the next project.

 

That's the big issue we just don't have enough people working on sport articles given how massive it is. Take the Olympics for example, in a perfect world, all of the nation, sports and supporting pages would be created and completed at a high quality during the span of the Olympics. That's over 700 articles, not including the over 10,000 athlete pages which would be updated. It's no wonder people set up articles in advance.