• TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
    751·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • earthworm@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      48·
      4 months ago

      what are you even supposed to do?

      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

      …

    • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
      23·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
        9·
        4 months ago

        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.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      9·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • NateNate60@lemmy.worldOP
        6·
        4 months ago

        Wikipedia’s VisualEditor has a find-and-replace feature. But blindly using find-and-replace causes problems when you have sentences like this:

        Donald Trump, who is the current president of the United States, draws a presidential salary of $400,000.

        …which turns into this nonsensical sentence:

        Donald Trump, who was the current present of the United States, draws a presidential salary of $400,000.

    • BremboTheFourth@piefed.caEnglish
      6·
      4 months ago

      Another major problem I see in fixing this: who the fuck wants to spend all that time sorting through literal fucking nonsense?

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    17·
    4 months ago

    This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably

    Yeah it’s definitely too long. But whose fault is that?

    • logi@piefed.worldEnglish
      3·
      4 months ago

      You’ll find that reality has a strong liberal bias. But not to worry, there will be a most presidential executive order later this week to abolish it.

  • adarza@lemmy.caEnglish
    12·
    4 months ago

    in case you’re wondering… no. it’s not the longest article on the english wikipedia… but it’s getting close.

  • TrackinDaKraken@lemmy.worldEnglish
    51·
    4 months ago

    Is it meant to be read, though? I’d just search for keywords in the article to find whichever lie I was interested in confirming.

    Also, is 21,000 words really that many? The story I’m just about finished writing for fun is at 140K words. I’m starting my fourth read-through for editing. It’s not that big of a deal. I guess people don’t read anymore?

    • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldEnglish
      161·
      4 months ago

      I guess people don’t read anymore?

      You hopefully saw that I linked the article size guidelines above alongside the 21,000 words figure. That page is only 1700 words, so feel free to give it a read and see if it soothes your curiosity for why we have them (definitely feel free to ask if any claims made seem dubious or terminology is unclear).

      Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that this singular “article” represents nearly 50 pages of prose in 12-point, single-spaced print – the size of a novella. Wikipedia articles are meant to be encyclopedic treatments of their subjects, not dissertations on them.

      Edit: just checked, and the “Download as PDF” of this article is 153 pages long.

    • NateNate60@lemmy.worldOP
      4·
      4 months ago

      Also, is 21,000 words really that many? The story I’m just about finished writing for fun is at 140K words. I’m starting my fourth read-through for editing. It’s not that big of a deal. I guess people don’t read anymore?

      Allow me to poke some fun at this.

      Also, is a 1,000 calorie cupcake really that many? The wedding cake I just finished baking is at 25,000 calories. This is the fourth one I’ve made. It’s not that big of a deal. I guess people don’t eat anymore?

  • Empricorn@feddit.nlEnglish
    2·
    3 months ago

    Makes sense to have article guidelines, but I’d argue it’s more of a list, documenting for history. I don’t think most people would read it like a book, beginning to end, no matter the length. So it should be all-encompassing, not split up.