User:Elliott-AtomicInfinity

Proudly never not had an edit reverted for silly reasons.

Sadly broke this 16-year streak in 2019 (reversion pending).

Back to normal after my latest constructive edit was reverted a month later.

Finally broke this streak in 2020. I had nothing to do with the decision to restore my article and other people have since contributed so I guess it might be for real this time but still (reversion pending).

One had to slip through eventually. One of the worst parts of WP - and one that's probably incredibly offputting for newcomers - is the number of editors who revert changes without any explanation. In that instant, you immediately wonder why you bother, especially when you're correct (or closer to it than the senior reverting your changes).

Despite being an active academic in multiple fields, I don't like participating in WP. The more I read about or on WP, the less inclined I am to donate my time.

Remember that WP is just a function of consensus thinkers working with mainstream sources to perpetuate an ivory tower sociopolitical zeitgeist. In the media and academia, "populism" - literally referring to the will of the people - is a dirty word. WP transitively represents the same basic contempt for the people.

Wikipedia is not 'truth,' Wikipedia is 'verifiability' of reliable sources. Hence, if most secondary sources which are taken as reliable happen to repeat a flawed account or description of something, Wikipedia will echo that. If all historians save one say that the sky was green in 1888, our policies require that we write 'the sky was green in 1888' ... As individual editors, we're not in the business of weighing claims, just reporting what reliable sources write.

— an administrator

"reliable" sources
"reliable" sources
"reliable" sources
"reliable" sources
"reliable" sources
"reliable" sources
(Maybe more on my contempt for what WP deems """"""reliable"""""" sources later.)

Several years ago, I was driven away from medical WP when a much less knowledgeable but much more senior user repeatedly reverted my uncontroversial, reference-supported contributions to a scientific subject on which I'm a published expert. When the editor explained his reasoning, I showed him that 50% of the article's content failed according to the same criterion and pegged it for deletion (for safety reasons, not vindictive editing). Despite the inconsistency creating an alarmingly inaccurate view of treatment options for patients, the article's status quo was upheld. Sure, I could've elevated my problem - wasted many hours of real time and weeks of passive involvement - but why should I? I've got better things to do. And besides, the antagonist of my tale was an admin and recognised moderator of medicine on WP. I would've had to take my complaints to the top, or even further, for likely no end result.

To this day, articles pertaining to my main field are woefully inadequate - mired over a decade behind the state of the art - and I'm forced to discourage those affected from reading the articles and professionals from wasting their time trying to improve them.

Here are some more of my favourite quotes about Wikipedia from scholars and editors that explain why the site is such a mess:

Wikipedia is, literally, a game about who can overwhelm the system best (i.e. shout the loudest). The editors are nothing more than petty tyrants who enforce their views using reversions, robot-editing, and appeals to WP:Authority when the weight of actual facts sit against them. An encyclopedia anyone can edit has devolved to exactly what anyone would have expected---an encyclopedia run by the inexpert whose articles seethe with unimpeachable half-truths, hearsay, and garbage.

— a fellow academic

You also have to fight the editors personal biases on Wikipedia. Like something as silly as Steak And BJ Day. For many years the people who enjoy the "holiday" have been trying to get it listed on Wikipedia. People have cited articles on the event. People have told Wikipedia that they themselves celebrate. There has even been petitions to get a listing on March 14th for the day. Unfortunately the mod for March page (who also mods several feminist pages on Wikipedia) shoots it down every time. It's a silly example, but it shows how Wikipedia has no interest in evidence of something. You can cite articles all you want. You can even get first hand testimonies, and it's all up to the biases of mod in charge of that particular page. Nothing else matters.

— an ex-editor