Hacker News Reader

Quite possibly because the topics you contribute to are very non controversial.

But Wikipedia as an encyclopedic repository is never going to be a good venue for controversial topics. That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. It's a terrible forum for a debate, and that's the way it will always be. This isn't something wrong with Wikipedia in particular, other than the fact that it is one of the largest and most visited sites on the Internet.

An encyclopedia with any remote claim to being thorough will inevitably have to cover some controversial topics though.

A normal encyclopedia is curated by a relatively small amount of people who are able to reach a consensus on a controversial topic, as opposed to random strangers on the Internet with an opinion being able to edit things.

Topics don't need to be traditionally controversial for them to be really tricky to edit.

I understand why Malvinas / Falklands is going to be tricky.

I don't expect to have to go to arbcom because I disagree with someone about - versus – versus —.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitrat...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com