Were you a registered user or anonymous? They have a lot of problems with vandalism so tend to over react to anonymous edits.

Oh yes, I put my full name in there. The people who have admin rights and delete rights are the ones that are anonymous. And frankly, based on the behavior I've seen, it's probably better it remain that way, I don't think these people have a lot of friends in real life.

I have contributed in the past and I saw similar behavior. It is not a stretch to imagine that some of them are full or part time staffers paid to control information. Surely a nice page on GMO is worth to Monsanto as much as, say, many minutes of prime time TV. There are numerous white collar salaries in that kind of money.

Then again I was several years ago in Italy with my wife and we had a fantastic meal near Montepulciano, Tuscany. The place was not listed in our Michelin guide. We asked the owners, and they said the reviewers want money, and they refuse to pay. They are happy with the traffic they get from word of mouth. The next night we went to a place listed in the guide and it was the worst meal we had in Tuscany (by a good stretch). Surely Wikipedia works by the same rules.

No there is no $$ involved in Wikipedia. But since there is no $$ the whole reason why people put so much time into it is the power they get from the control. I have made edits and they all went through but you need to build up your cred with the dictators. Start by fixing corrections in existing entries, or even just putting things on the discussion pages. Make sure any new entry follows every single convention they have. Basically, realize you are starting as a foot soldier nothing and need to slowly work your way up the power hierarchy.

One of the reasons why I am not writing for Wikipedia is I don't feel like licking all that shoe leather first.

Scott

My understanding is that basically, the only way you can get an actual post into there now is if you are a bona fide well known expert in the field.... Like.. say you had written 3-books on the subject of Heirloom apples...

For example -- Dr. Carolyn could probably successfully post a blurb about Tomatoes... She has written a book and has some "Credentials."

Otherwise, the whole thing broke down into a flaming pile of nasty about 6-years ago and is almost useless...

Thanks

John

Scott and Axel: Just keep posting here. You are both pros and those in the fruit "know" will be here before Wikipedia.

The unfortunate thing is that experts like Scott and Axel get drown out in all the internet static. It's similar to the discussion about selecting fruit varieties for home growers. Someone should hire a network of home grower pros to consult nurseries. That won't happen but we can get it for free here.

Thanks for the compliments, alas I have lots to learn. Most of the real god know how I get through our local CRFG and through our local farmers (which includes many apple growers.) Whenever I learn something new I like to share it here and in other forums around the net.

I've learned a lot from Gardenweb, Wikipedia is a waste, and people should find out that it is the case and stop using it. The shoe leather analogy is right on.

Surely you jest, Scott. There must be money in Wikipedia. Not from Wikipedia directly but from people who want certain content on Wikipedia. I remember a product that Wikipedia touted as a superior technology. I also remember going there right away the day the unknown Sarah Palin was nominated for the GOP ticket. On Wiki, she looked like Superwoman, and the entry was extremely detailed. Then I looked at the log and the page had been modified hundreds of times in the last few days. And all that is free?

Anyhow, if you read other languages, try (as I often do) the non-english versions. Different mafias produce different results.

Nope, no money at all. Just power and influence which if strong enough smells just like money.

Scott

Guess we agree to disagree. But either way, the reason why we cherish GW and despise Wiki is that there is little doubt about the integrity and motives of the people who post here.

If you are interested there is an online tool that allows you to search username to see what article the people are editing/revising. http://wikiwatcher.virgil.gr/pmcu/

Here is the revision history
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_apple_cultivars&action=history

It shows Fruitculture, FrescoBot (which is not a real user), Abc30 and Brunnerserso as people who revised AxelKratel's contribution. From what it looks like Brunner didn't change much from your submission.

If you actually suspect someone is editing the site anonymously for political/economic gain (typically called Sock Puppetry) you can search their IP (it appears in the edit history) with this tool http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/

Here is a link that might be useful: Examples of Potential Wikipedia Sock Puppetry

The issue is I just don't have the time to wage political wars just to do a write up on an apple variety. If you just ponder this, you begin to see how ridiculous it is. If I had something to promote, it might be worth the trouble, but seriously, who has time for this sort of crap? I just wanted to give something to the community, that's all. As far as I am concerned, Wikipedia is a monstrous waste of time if it takes that much effort just to post an apple variety.

I refuse to donate any more money to Wikipedia, they are a sham and should be denounced as such. It's just a graffiti wall complete with gangs.

Wikipedia is indeed loaded with alarmingly inaccurate information. The whole concept of perfected information is in itself fatally flawed. On forums like gardenweb the give and take exposes the nuances and differences of perspective that allow each user to extract the most useful information to their own situation and values. Keep up the great work Axel.

I use Wikipedia for information I need to research. I am glad they are stingy. If left open and easy it turn into a Tabloid. Your article might be good but hay you win some you lose some.
Once I did some correction on a subject in field and was accepted. Even if they rejected it would not bother me.

You didn't tell us what you wrote for anyone to judge.
You also didn't tell us what reason they gave for deletion for us to judge them.

I'm looking at their cultivar list and I don't see how it's a joke. If anything I think they have too many minor varieties and need more deletions.

People are supposed to descend on entries like vultures to keep it from turning into garbage. If you want to have complete say you need to make a website.

Well, my entry was last March. I wanted to help Wikipedia by adding variety descriptions. I started with My Jewel, a local Watsonville heirloom, talked about history and described the flavor.

Within 2 hours, the article was marked for deletion. I was accused of having a conflict of interest, which is ridiculous, because it's not my apple variety, nor do I grow it commercially.

It's one thing to say the article needs references, but it's another to be accused of a conflict of interest and have it marked for deletion immediately. Of course I argued with the person who claimed this, they conceded, agreeing the article was legitimate, but then they deleted the article anyway.

As far as I am concerned, might as well just have someone spit in my face. These people appear to me as rude and anti-social, hiding behind a computer screen and getting a sense of power. After researching online about what is going in in Wikipedia, I discovered that many others had the same experience. Basically, to get an article posted, you have to be extremely persistent and do quite a bit of brown nosing. It's like dealing with a big government bureaucracy and all these people want to get acknowledged and will make ridiculous claims. If you've never posted to Wikipedia before, expect to have every last possible warning posted on your article, legitimate or not, and then you get to defend each warning with half a dozen people.

Since I wasn't interested in brown nosing anyone, I gave up. Wikipedia is not reliable. It's not a function of having accurate information, it's a function of having worked your way up the pecking order. Once higher up, you can write all sorts of things.

The worst thing about WP is that the info gets copied and quoted all over the web without attribution on authoritative looking web sites: the BS breeds and multiplies! Long before the web, I had an uncle who was published by Scribner who was considered an authority in his field. I saw what was behind his manuscripts and it was pure BS. The whole thing is kind of biblical: on the eighth day speech was created, and on the ninth BS was created. Gotta love the old libertarian bumper sticker "Question Authority".

^^^ On the eighth day!!! I thought he created the whole thing in 6 days.

Going by my own standards I would've removed My Jewel as a minor player/clutter. Going by what they have on their list it should've been left and cleaned of any personal opinions (it's easy to allow personal opinion cloud things up when talking flavors).
Claiming a conflict of interest sounds like a butting of heads, especially since they have allowed new varieties that haven't proved themselves yet.

If you want to see really bad on Wiki go to some animal entries. I haven't ever added/corrected but I did add to a discussion and quickly gave up.
But in their defense if you go back in time and see what has happened to alternative religion entries you'll understand why they got so heavy handed. And whenever something gets heavy handed corruption enters, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I've never researched how WP contributions & monitoring of posted material works. Several times I've heard it disparaged as a reference source when used in debate, with the comment "anyone can post, I can change that page right now" or "WP is compiled by 15 yr olds" etc. So I read through the entire talk/history of the My Jewel article out of curiosity.

Here is what my read found:
You added My Jewel to this of cultivars. It's possible this in itself would've stayed in place.

Because you created a short article to link from the cultivar list, it generated attention. Someone "patrolled" it immediately and found it was OK (not blatant vandalism). But one criteria for new articles (vs. reference in existing articles) is that it meet "notability" standards, as not just anything should have it's own page in an encyclopedia!

A few hours later, it was tagged for speedy deletion with a fairly "low priority" reason code of A7. Another editor corrected that editor for using the wrong code. You also pleaded with the initial editor -- he removed it. A few minutes later a different editor again tags it for deletion with an even higher reason code and also adds a COI code to it!

Because My Jewel is obscure, you referenced a specific company in a fairly unknown city, which sounded like you were affiliated or pushing the tree for personal benefit, the reason they tagged you with the Conflict of Interest. At this point I was LOL.

When you defended it to the editor stating you don't have any interest in the company and only grow the tree yourself for personal consumption they said "well, if you're the only one growing it, then you want others to grow it" you now have a conflict of interest! I was rolling my eyes on that one, too! You corrected these two editors, by quoting them the WP guidelines for COI and notability and received "oh you're right, let's put it all back".

Those conversations happened on three editors individual Talk pages. But meanwhile, two more editors get involved and agree between themselves it wasn't notable enough in a Google search, and posted such on the new page "Marked for Deletion -- My Jewel" (not sure if you were even aware of this at the time). That's a grand total of 6 editors involved a mere few hours after posting it, 5 of which originally wanted it deleted (not revised, deleted).

A couple days later, admin drops by, looks only at the two comments on the Marked for Deletion page (by editors you hadn't conversed with yet) and voila, it's gone. The editors you previously convinced had moved on without updating a thing.

It was obvious to me there wasn't any specific bias towards you or the apple, but rather they treat you like doctors treat walk-in patients with pain. You're a drug seeker unless you absolutely prove it different (with 3rd party proof of the pain or condition, otherwise it's a conflict of interest if you describe it). Because as stated in prior posts, the WP editors expect either you don't know what you're doing, have your own interests in mind, or are there to flat out vandalize. You must be glutton for punishment as a newbie posting an article; otherwise you must be previously respected, ie. WP-credentialed, to avoid this initial wall. From browsing the other points on those editors talk pages, I can understand why. A few days in doctor shoes, seeing real drug-seekers come in and repeated saying "my pain ia a 10!" numbs you quickly.

It's unfortunate on both sides.