this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
20 points (100.0% liked)
Wikipedia
1370 readers
272 users here now
A place to share interesting articles from Wikipedia.
Rules:
- Only links to Wikipedia permitted
- Please stick to the format "Article Title (other descriptive text/editorialization)"
Recommended:
- If possible, when submitting please delete the "m." from "en.m.wikipedia.org". This will ensure people clicking from desktop will get the full Wikipedia website.
- Interested users can find add-ons and scripts which do this automatically.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Meta note, I like a short description after the article title, I feel it gives the community more life and makes this place feel less sterile. I'm a lot more likely to click on a post if there is a brief description. I know the rules discourage it but Im not sure why. Is it a holdover from reddit? I know the subs there have a lot of rules due to the large volume of posts but its not really an issue on Lemmy with the smaller size.
No editorializing seems like a great policy though.
If the mod asks Ill edit this post to just be the article title
I read the no editorializing request in regards to the link title, but adding a bit for clarification is fine. If you like putting a salient quote or a quick synopsis within the optional text of the post, there's nothing wrong with that choice. But I'd hate for it to be mandatory. Some articles speak for themselves, and the comments are always open for community engagement.
But I'm not a mod, and I don't speak for our resident clam man.
The reddit had this policy to avoid editorialization, which I've carried over here, because we are here to appreciate the beauty of Wikipedia, which has its own carefully formulated policies on article titles. It is so rare that we can just open a link and can be confident it's not click bait, and is exactly what it says on the tin. However, I will take a light hand on moderating this; I just know there's no clear line of what is appropriate, and I think it's better to let the wiki speak for itself. In this case I think all the points you brought up are mentioned in the article. Perhaps that can be the bar we set: no editorialization outside of the scope of the source article.