Okay, I can give a bit of insight into why this isn’t just a shitpost on behalf of Wikipedia’s editors. For various important reasons, we have guidelines on article size, and while it’s not hard-and-fast, 10,000 words is generally the point where most editors will start wanting to trim material from the article or branch it off into more specific subarticles. An article with more than 15,000 words should “almost certainly be divided or trimmed”. For context, the article on “World War II” has 13,000 words, and that’s because there are literally tens of thousands of other articles about that war containing offloaded details within details within details.
The article “False or misleading statements by Donald Trump” currently has 21,000 words. It’s utterly giga-fucked compared to any other article I’ve ever seen on the English Wikipedia. And when e.g. the “COVID-19 pandemic” section already has the listed “further information” articles of: “COVID-19 pandemic in the United States”, “COVID-19 misinformation by the United States § Trump administration”, and “Communication of the Trump administration during the COVID-19 pandemic”, what are you even supposed to do? It’s fucking impossible.
Nah, by category could be funnier. “Statements contradicted by science”, “Statements contradicted by basic economics”, “Statements later directly contradicted by Trump”
Then how about a single chronological article of every bogus statement he ever made. Then have other articles that cluster them topically and provide context?
Or you make it like the list of “Just among the world” (if that is the english title for the Yad Versham honoring)
That’s just a long table with a short description of the acts of the person for deserving the honour, the person itself or even the event might have their own article
I’m just saying, we can make this so much more funny than a single banner at the top of a single article. We can make multiple, legitimately-needed Wikipedia articles about Donald Trump’s horseshit, I want to see some wikipedia editor try and say “no not like that!”
I know you didn’t ask, but I will tell you that when I saw this post I didn’t interpret it as a criticism of Wikipedia, but of the article subject. I read “Wikipedia at it again” as a positive endorsement about telling the truth.
I agree with that, and I think that one comment below has it wrong. My comment wasn’t a defense as much as it was a neutral clarification for readers at home™. I try to offer additional context when Wikipedia stuff gets brought up on Lemmy, because 1) selfishly, I think demystifying it makes it more likely that new people try editing, and 2) with Wikipedia being a major anchor of the modern information ecosystem, it’s healthier for said ecosystem if people better understand what goes into it.
Okay, I can give a bit of insight into why this isn’t just a shitpost on behalf of Wikipedia’s editors. For various important reasons, we have guidelines on article size, and while it’s not hard-and-fast, 10,000 words is generally the point where most editors will start wanting to trim material from the article or branch it off into more specific subarticles. An article with more than 15,000 words should “almost certainly be divided or trimmed”. For context, the article on “World War II” has 13,000 words, and that’s because there are literally tens of thousands of other articles about that war containing offloaded details within details within details.
The article “False or misleading statements by Donald Trump” currently has 21,000 words. It’s utterly giga-fucked compared to any other article I’ve ever seen on the English Wikipedia. And when e.g. the “COVID-19 pandemic” section already has the listed “further information” articles of: “COVID-19 pandemic in the United States”, “COVID-19 misinformation by the United States § Trump administration”, and “Communication of the Trump administration during the COVID-19 pandemic”, what are you even supposed to do? It’s fucking impossible.
Easy. Break it up into separate articles.
False or misleading statements by Donald Trump on January 1, 2025
False or misleading statements by Donald Trump on January 2, 2025
False or misleading statements by Donald Trump On January 3, 2025
…
Nah, by category could be funnier. “Statements contradicted by science”, “Statements contradicted by basic economics”, “Statements later directly contradicted by Trump”
The only problem with this approach is duplication. Many statements would appear in multiple lists
Then how about a single chronological article of every bogus statement he ever made. Then have other articles that cluster them topically and provide context?
This it a great suggestion.
One “Trump fact” could be referenced in multiple articles.
Or you make it like the list of “Just among the world” (if that is the english title for the Yad Versham honoring)
That’s just a long table with a short description of the acts of the person for deserving the honour, the person itself or even the event might have their own article
I’m just saying, we can make this so much more funny than a single banner at the top of a single article. We can make multiple, legitimately-needed Wikipedia articles about Donald Trump’s horseshit, I want to see some wikipedia editor try and say “no not like that!”
Don’t forget “Statements earlier directly contradicted by Trump.”
You also need, Statements contradicted by objective reality.
This is usually what they do for long list-type articles. For examples, see such fascinating articles such as:
I know you didn’t ask, but I will tell you that when I saw this post I didn’t interpret it as a criticism of Wikipedia, but of the article subject. I read “Wikipedia at it again” as a positive endorsement about telling the truth.
I agree with that, and I think that one comment below has it wrong. My comment wasn’t a defense as much as it was a neutral clarification for readers at home™. I try to offer additional context when Wikipedia stuff gets brought up on Lemmy, because 1) selfishly, I think demystifying it makes it more likely that new people try editing, and 2) with Wikipedia being a major anchor of the modern information ecosystem, it’s healthier for said ecosystem if people better understand what goes into it.
Thats what I thought it was. Was it not intended as such?
When he inevitably dies of an aneurysm I hope you like have a script ready to change “is” into “was” because otherwise it’s going to take forever.
Wikipedia’s VisualEditor has a find-and-replace feature. But blindly using find-and-replace causes problems when you have sentences like this:
…which turns into this nonsensical sentence:
Yeah you’re gonna need a verb tense find-and-replacer
Another major problem I see in fixing this: who the fuck wants to spend all that time sorting through literal fucking nonsense?