The narwhal wikipedia talk page is an abyssal mess

[@HGModernism]

Just a reminder not to go bother anyone, especially Wolverine XI! In my personal experience, editing wikipedia has been a wonderful way to make a positive mark on the world -- especially valuable when I was young and struggled to find connection. I found meaning through bringing quality information together in one place for everyone to benefit from. The correct processes were eventually followed and I hope Wolverine XI can continue to edit in peace. 😊

[@joshuaanolick3635]

The business about citing Dr Nweeia reminds me of the line in Dr Strangelove when the Soviet Ambassador gravely says "Our source was the New York Times."

[@paulmayo2948]

The phone call scene between the presidents, dry as a bone humor at it's best

[@thomaseriksen6885]

Why on earth would a foreign dignitary say some so

[@gearandalthefirst7027]

@@paulmayo2948 More like "dry as a modified canine tooth structure" given the context

[@sicksock435446]

Poor citations are one of my greatest pet peeves. Especially when the citations are the one-two combo of: "A news article paraphrasing a scientific paper" and "a scientific paper which does not contain the alleged information". Grrrr

[@m1k3y48]

Wikipedia is a trip. Someone did a video called "the criptids of Wikipedia" deep diving into Wikipedia's long term abuse page, which documents known trolls, vandals, etc. Wolverine reminded me a bit of that (though to a lesser severity)

[@keirfarnum6811]

There’s no article about the “bloodtids” of Wiki?”

[@BloodwyrmWildheart]

~77% of all Wiki articles are written by 1% of its editors. Major red flag.

[@duncanluciak5516]

​@@BloodwyrmWildheart That is generally the way knowledge is disseminated. A few people share it with many.

[@maksrambe3812]

​@@BloodwyrmWildheart90% of editors probably make one edit and stop so I would actually expect something like this.

[@I_Love_Learning]

@@BloodwyrmWildheart That is wrong and misleading. 1% of editors have edited on 77% of articles, and most articles are generated from city records and stuff shoved into a template, so there isn't really a human choosing what the Wikipedia article says to be biased towards whatever they believe or whatever.

[@vmp916]

I love the sub genre of deep dive explainers where the presenter A. Finds themselves in the position to correct the record on often quoted misinformation B. Discovers really low stakes niche internet beef C. Does both at the same time

[@qwopiretyu]

That's when the edit war REALLY started heating up. See narballs69 kept editing that narwhals were born gay but admin joe9999 would reverse the edits, sometimes within minutes, insisting that homosexuality in all species was not definable until sexual maturity

[@KarlBunker]

Great video. And yeah, Wikipedia editing-debates often become a cesspool of pompous acrimony that can drive one to madness. Considering the subject matter of this article in particular, sometimes all you can say is "[cetacean needed]". 😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁 Love your channel. I hope it gets the growth it deserves.

[@MrJethroha]

Wikipedia editors tend to be odd folk as a rule, so I'm really not surprised so many articles have their own WolverineXI jealously editing and re-editing them everyday.

[@arminreindl7742]

as a fellow editor, kudos to putting up with this, WolverineXI has sure been....erratic? they seem to have a habit of picking up articles they want to take to FA, don't really seem to care to implement the changes suggested by reviewers, then basically ignore their started FAs unless they are just promoted outright while making up excuses as to why they stopped working the countless minor edits clogging up page history tho are something else, they made about 210 edits to a mammoth as of late, each and every single one simply changing individual conversion formulas across the page one by one.

[@HGModernism]

Yeah! So I was SO sure at first it was a bot! It reminded me of those "subscription bomb" attacks where an attacker hides a real identity theft email alert by signing the target's email address up for massive amounts of spam. Like you open your inbox to 10,000 emails and are never going to find the one from your bank changing your address/email/password/etc.

[@HGModernism]

For I spent a LONG time assuming there was something super sneaky or insidious going on.

[@arminreindl7742]

@@HGModernism It might be that it inflates the edit count and makes it easier to claim the FA nomination while doing very little substantial work that contributes to the information of the page itself? Admittedly, thats pretty bad faith and I've seen plenty of people who simply do not know how to consolidate their edits or struggle with it due to their own writing/editing style. Thank god sandboxes exist for that.

[@TheTransporter007]

@@HGModernism They are not a bot. They just have questionable mental stability.

[@HGModernism]

@@arminreindl7742 Ohhhh... pumping the FA status metrics makes so much sense actually, I didn't think of that! I would *hope* that these metrics would check for number of accounts editing, but honestly that would probably just encourage more fake accounts so... huuuh. I need to look into exactly how FA nominations work. Good faith is only for how I treat and interact with other editors. My mystery solving instincts are too strong to be repressed given my own curiosity haha

[@tfk_001]

My only experience with editing wikipedia was fixing the absolutely atrocious spelling of "Lousaina", "Grenadines's," and the less atrocious "defence" (in a context where defence was wrong) and also added an album to a band's discography that somehow hadn't been added a few months after its release. I long for the days where I can find a drama to the scale of narwhal horns

[@Palakarava]

Wikipedia needs a policy in place to prevent these "page guardians" from having such a powerful grip on a page. Perhaps after a large enough number of edits, over a long enough period of time, their account is automatically, permanently locked from editing the page further.

[@aenetanthony]

I think rate limiting would be better than banning them from the article. Just say that after a certain large number of edits over a fairly short time on one article, you can only make 1 edit per day or something. It would force them to consolidate their tiny edits into larger edits which are more manageable for other editors to parse.

[@oiytd5wugho]

there is a policy of no more than (iirc) 3 edit reversals. Once you've done so 3 times you have to take the disagreement to the talk: and figure it out there. It is not automatic, though. If someone is tying to appropriate the article by other means, then the only way is to start a discussion about their behaviour and tag someone above you (who depends on the topic, probably someone from a relevant wikiproject)

[@oiytd5wugho]

@@aenetanthony this doesn't work for current events, where people can legitimately make multiple edits a day. There are policies against ownership and edit wars, they just aren't automatic because that cannot be implemented without impeding some good-faith edits

[@Speederzzz]

There is indeed OWN (page ownership) and 3RR (3 revert rule). Every rule breach needs to be put forth on the Administrators noticeboard, so an admin can look at it and decide on proper punishment. There are sometimes legitimate reasons do to a bunch of smaller edits, but often these will be used against you if you get accused of something. (Why not just edit all your little changes in one go? Do you want to inflate your edit count for cloud? The problem is that being an admin has become more and more a chore and the method for becoming an admin can be quite stressful so people don't bother. But people need to actually go to the wiki-police if they see something rulebreaking. Most do not (not gonna blame them) so these people continue without any worries.

[@TheTransporter007]

Wikipedia is simultaneously one of mankinds greatest creations, and at the same time the most monumental trainwreck in recorded history.

[@youkofoxy]

Well, that is Mankind for you.

[@ced3763]

it teach peoples to check their source and be critical.. you wouldn't have this with a perfectly curated platform..

[@lightningninja6905]

​@@ced3763Ehh does it though? It seems to me that people will just be wrong if you give bad info.

[@ced3763]

​@@lightningninja6905 I don't know of any enciclopedia who get 100% of it's fact straight.. But wikipedia never pretended to be accurate in the first place. If you are smart and curious enough to look things up in a encyclopaedia, you are probably capable to be critical to some extent, but even if you are not, it's not so bad that your chance of being mislead over just a few search is statistically significant.It's not perfect, but calling it a trainwreck is a bit excessive.. you wish most gouvernement would operate at this level of truth and integrity, they mostly do not..

[@lightningninja6905]

@@ced3763 Those actually are all fair points! I was specifically talking about the idea that it (being wrong) would teach them to investigate further and be critical of the text. As I understand that those skills aren't really improved when bad information is given.

[@1boldearth]

Wolverine XI 💀💀💀 Holy hell dude seems to have an ego

[@morgantseasrant1948]

Bout to say they are a dick, with documented evidence of being territorial about articles and making so many edits to have said ownership.

[@birobiro1910]

How the hell did I get here 😂 but extremely immersive storytelling. Didn’t care for Wikipedia editing nor do i know anything about narwhals but was hooked till the end. Staying for more

[@emmanuel1337]

This video took me back to when I decided to contribute to a page on Tyrannosaurus rex in the PT-BR page, which at the time had a lot of outdated and dubious information. It quickly became a battle of editing between me and whoever thought they had ownership of the page, until I eventually gave up (or was blocked in some way, I don't even remember) and just accepted that the page simply was lost and unfortunately some people would come across it and be duped by the wrong information. To this day there's still some wild information without citations just thrown in there as if it was fact that even contradicts stuff that is later said in the page itself, but it's infinitely better than before. I'd like to do something about it, but I just don't want to risk devoting my time just to have the corrections reverted back later...

[@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts]

If watching welsh nationalists has taught me anything, it's that Wikipedia is full of misinformation also, i occasionally find random, unscorced statements on wiki that sre so fascinating they MUST come from somewhere. But where? Who knows.

[@annaairahala9462]

Welsh nationalists? What rabbit hole did you fall down to start watching Welsh nationalists?

[@QerstyBass]

i wanna see wolverine xi's furaffinity page

[@annaairahala9462]

The more I've interacted with wikipedia, the more I've realized that so many pages are plagued by misinformation just because of one person who took it upon themselves to monitor the page for anything they might disagree with. Nowadays, I only ever use wikipedia as an aggregated source page, like the many search sites for academic studies. It's so ridiculously common to see the wikipedia page say one thing but their source to say something completely different. I hope people do understand that wikipedia is not a source, but they can be good for finding sources

[@edwinrollins142]

Wikipedia drama is so juicy in such a weird way, lol

[@9000ck]

Maybe the tusk rubbing is a symbolic sort of sparring. Like most of youtube. And Wikipedia apparently. I love Narwhals. The best party is a Narwhal party.

[@Velocirocelot]

I loved this video! Your enthusiasm is infectious, and I would love to see more videos of you fact-checking Wikipedia articles, and the drama that can occur within Wikipedia edits haha. Subbed!

[@arkonnKeb]

I watched your video in deep night, i wake up 9 hours later and youre almost at 1000 subs! Much deserved, to milion and beyond

[@Freddisred]

A very cathartic video essay, thank you for enduring this lol.

[@consensuslphisk]

hearing this person claim YOU'RE the one biased on the matter of narwhals makes my blood boil lmao

[@__-vb3ht]

This low key makes me want to contribute to Wikipedia pages somehow

[@HGModernism]

Do it! It's way easier than it might seem. Even if you aren't a specialist, just checking sources when you see something odd is a great way to contribute!

[@lonjil]

It makes me want to not touch wikipedia ever

[@lightningninja6905]

It's funny, this video made me want to do the same to an article (Mason Jars) that I believed to have numerous NPOV violations. (I wasn't sure how to go about it properly) However when I went to look for it, some fine fellow by the name of TheHiddenWind had already fixed those issues, only 7 days before now. Plus he cited the same concerns as me, which felt reassuring in a weird way.

[@Jack93885]

Pretty much all of my edits have been reverted, most made when I was a child. One day recently I was reading up on something and went to check the source for the information provided and found that the information had been put into a table on Wikipedia backwards so I fixed it. I think it's my only edit to ever stand but I'm happy with it. My minor contribution counts for something, next time someone goes to that page but doesn't go to the actual source they'll leave with the right information. :]

[@annaairahala9462]

@@Jack93885 Yeah it's rough. There is one edit I'm proud of that still exists on an ever growing page. It added new information that was missing. I tried adding a photo tied to the information too, but unfortunately I could never get in contact with the photographer (I'm not even sure if they're alive anymore tbh) Meanwhile I have a number of other edits that are still around but modified to the point where they aren't even saying the same thing the source says or ones that were reverted that shouldn't have been but I just didn't have the energy to debate people in the talk page. I find it's best to focus on things that add new sources, because at least that way the people interested in information can still get it. Personally, I've just retired from touching wikipedia edits, it's a losing battle.

[@london_vivere]

your outfits are always immaculate!! Love the biology videos keep them up!

[@TommyLikeTom]

I really wish my life was so peaceful that I could sit down and make a video about narwhals

[@doomsk888]

great video! Love your tone of humor and information :))

[@HalfAsleepSam]

They were tusking

[@makinginternetcontent]

I mean, at least this claim has a citation, that's better than some other curious claims i've seen on wiki pages!

[@LilQuackus]

I didn't think narwhals were real for like my entire life

[@Jotari]

Why?

[@sicksock435446]

I had a roommate who though that reindeer were just from Christmas stories until she was 27...

[@annaairahala9462]

You think narwhals are real? Imagine thinking the ocean exists /s

[@Jotari]

@@sicksock435446 At least a reindeer are in a specific mythos with supernatural association (flying). In what context are people even encountering Narwhals to think they're fictional? It's not like they're in the Iliad or anything.

[@ExterminatorElite]

What a nice short story about digging into sources and learning cool Narwhal facts and oh no Wikipedia editors... I've heard true horror stories about editors and admins with, shall we say, special interests. This was totally tame by comparison, thank goodness.

[@szlomobronsztajn3115]

Subbed! Love it, now I need more Wikipedia article jousting

[@Methlab]

I hate misinformation on Wikipedia >:(

[@annaairahala9462]

Welcome to much of wikipedia

[@oiytd5wugho]

Honestly, every time I read an article about something I know stuff about I see various levels of misinformation, so I just assume the whole website is to be taken with a teaspoon of salt. edit: scratch that, the articles on math or physics principles are entirely factual, they suck for other reasons (overcomplicated)

[@walterk9916]

I know we have to "Assume good faith" but like who died and made this dude Wolverine the king of the narwals

[@WildVoltorb]

This is very nerdy and I love it!

[@llynnmarks3382]

Great work! You vaguely remind me of a friend I have who got her pHD this year.

[@joshrb2010]

Good stuff. I didn't know I enjoyed wikipedia editor drama so much. Another!

[@RobMarchione]

This is fantastic and you should keep being awesome.

[@RobMarchione]

Also I have never so badly wanted to edit a wikipedia article on Narwhals.

[@mopspear]

There were some articles about Egyptian gods that used some odd sources around 2010 that were obviously stretching way too far with the facts. One user kept defending them, like it was their hill to die on, and I guess they gave up at some point, and now the articles are normal, at least the last time I checked.

[@pineapplepotato6985]

Wikipedia is 100x worse than Reddit. That’s a fact that should be mortifying.

[@annaairahala9462]

I wouldn't go that far... At least wikipedia tends to have reputable sources while reddit rarely provides good sources

[@duncanluciak5516]

Those aliens washed my tusk!

[@richjageman3976]

It is not just narwhals that get this treatment...

[@shinysands9193]

this is great, you deserve way more subs

[@Mittzys]

Wikipedia certainly has some... specimens

[@neon-kitty]

Great video! My only tiny nitpick is that the music and sfx were a bit too loud compared to your voice imo.

[@SnarkNSass]

You said the magic word! Snarky 😂 Subd N Belld ⭐

[@amelialonelyfart8848]

It's set to be deleted soon, but the talk page for "List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle" is the most toxic Wikipedia talk page I've ever seen. It starts with a somewhat innocuous request to split the article, followed by "Have you considered leaving it THE FUCK alone!?" (said by Wikipedia Celebrity EEng, no less. Yes, that EEng.) The rest of the discussion is just somewhat politely arguing for splitting it (it's over 600,000 bytes long) and everyone else being really aggressive.

[@Speederzzz]

Aha, EEng, who has their own thread on wikipediocracy... Could still be a case of WP:HOUND(ing) but with EEng, you never know

[@randomwarehouse4702]

Don't tell RFK Jr about this...

[@colly6022]

im just like narwhals fr fr.....

[@bingusbongus9807]

haven't watched the video yet but i need to respond to the rhetorical question at the beginning, yes i did know about the tooth thing and yes i did presume there to be gay narwhals since all mammals seem to have gay members

[@QueenTea_]

frotting

[@kapoink835]

The real question you're all missing here is WHO THE FUCK CARES ABOUT NARWHALS

[@Lars22]

Love your videos, but as a non-native speaker could you keep text a bit longer on the screen - ie I had to go back and pause for the narwal joke at 1:34. Keep it up!

[@theonetruebobthecob972]

Bongo

[@Neldonax]

11 minutes of wasted time

[@mojrimibnharb4584]

Dafuq are you wearing? Also, how did you stay awake to do all that?

[@Starlight_Akira]

Another banger! Well done :D Btw, I really love the art for your intros at 0:30