Wikipedia

1603 readers

379 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)"
Tick the NSFW box for submissions with inappropriate thumbnails

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 2 years ago

MODERATORS

dantheclamman

Plum

Brainstorm: Tell me your thoughts on editorialization in titles (self.wikipedia)

submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by dantheclamman to c/wikipedia

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hi fellow wikipedia lovers,

I am getting feedback on people wanting less rules on titles. I intentionally made it not a hard rule, but I think there's something beautiful in just using the wikipedia title by default. Wikipedia is a site immune to clickbait with strict policies on titles, and so aesthetically, I prefer to put the description in the post body, not the title. It also makes it much easier to moderate :D But please tell me your thoughts on this topic and we can re-calibrate the rule, if people would prefer. This community doesn't belong to me; I just made it because I wanted it to exist. Also, on that topic, since our community is well over 1000 monthly active users, would be great to bring on 1-2 moderators, because I don't have any intention to be BDFL of this community and I honestly have enough going on as it is. Please comment or DM me if you are interested. I will select applicants based on prior engagement here.

Cheers, Your humble local mod who is definitely not using this community as a trojan horse for clam facts but here's an article about wampum because I feel like it

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Paragone 1 points 5 months ago

Wikipedia-titles often don't give enough context for one to understand if it's worth clicking-into.

I've got enough web-parasites trying to machiavellianly pry into my finite-mental-strength, .. so it's more likely for me to just ignore any post in this community which I can't understand whether it's worth digging-into,

& therefore am much more prone to not engaging, thanks to the "laconic" non-informativeness of the posts.

Others may have the same reaction..

Take a look at www.TVTropes.org & see how their titles pull people into their articles, & see the difference with this community's posts..

Also, thank you for making this community: there are a few very interesting ones I've found only because of here.

_ /\ _