

Wikipedia Lamest Edit Wars (Infographic) - fod
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/wikipedia-lamest-edit-wars/

======
tptacek
Once again, an "infographic" at InformationIsBeautiful.net contributes very
little beyond the underlying prose it's based on (in this case a Google
spreadsheet, which is actually _easier_ to read).

~~~
ajdecon
Unfortunately, InformationIsBeautiful.net basically exists to be an
advertisement for the author's book, The Visual Miscellaneum. Which is a very
pretty book--I own it--but not really full of informative infographics.
There's some original content in the blog, but far too much of it is reposts
of graphics from the book.

For a better (or at least more varied) selection of infographics I like:

* Chart Porn (<http://chartporn.org/>)

* Flowing Data (<http://flowingdata.com/>) which also covers datavis software

* Information Aesthetics (<http://infosthetics.com/>)

* We Love DataVis (<http://datavis.tumblr.com/>)

(edit: formatting)

------
Groxx
I love how the death star article is on there. Though I don't know that this
qualifies as an infographic: the only info on it is title + num_edits. The
relative sizes aren't informative, their locations aren't informative
(horizontal or vertical, I'm sure the Jesus article is still highly edited).

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars> for the data. Not
sure where to get the edit counts, aside from checking the history statistics.

~~~
aristus
And, dammit, it's spelled _Brasil_.

~~~
Groxx
IMDB says "no": <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/>

Battle!

------
philwelch
One of these I remember quite well--Angels and Airwaves "is" a band vs. "are"
a band. Wikipedia's summary:

 _More than 40 reverts in one hour by two editors. The point of contention?
Whether "Angels & Airwaves" is a band or "Angels & Airwaves" are a band.
(British English requires "are," as the band comprises multiple people, while
American English requires "is", as the band is a singular entity.) ALL-CAPS
edit summaries laced with profanity and death threats liberally employed by
one side. Stopped only after admin intervention, but resumed again two minutes
after the 3RR block expired. Both get blocked for seven days, and one of them
gets his block extended to eight days after stating he doesn't care as long as
the other side gets a block of same length. The other side keeps his seven-day
block._

I was the admin in that case. It was my proudest moment in all of Wikipedia
adminship.

~~~
carussell
I think mentioning the British/American disparity does a disservice to
demonstrating how truly ridiculous the argument was, because it distracts from
what the "are" user was actually arguing, which is that "are" is correct
because the subject is is named by a phrase comprising two things join by a
conjunction, "and".

Reading the actual "discussion" is both hilarious and depressingly
frustrating. The Alex 101 user had to have been trolling, 'cause, I mean,
_come on_.

~~~
philwelch
"Angels and Airwaves" is a syntactically encapsulated name in American
English. Americans still say "Black and Decker is a company" or "Emerson Lake
& Palmer is a band"--and those are non-metaphorical uses of "and" to name the
members or founders of the group!

~~~
carussell
_"Angels and Airwaves" is a syntactically encapsulated name in American
English._

Why are you explaining this to me?

Like I already said, the argument didn't even have anything to do with British
versus American conventions. That aspect wasn't even brought up until later by
another user.

Suppose the band wasn't called "Angels and Airwaves", but "Airwave Angels",
and that it wasn't really a band in the literal/literary sense of the
word―suppose it was a one-man production through-and-through. The user who
raised the argument would have _still_ argued for the change on the same
basis, which was that it should be "are" because "Angels" is plural,
regardless of the actual number of members and with no notion of British and
American style differences.

Bringing up the differences between British and American English legitimizes
the issue slightly, but it was completely unrelated. Suggesting that it
somehow has something to do with it detracts from how truly ridiculous the
argument actually was.

~~~
philwelch
I still don't understand what you're saying, though. It _is_ a matter of
British vs. American English, and the major problem to me, at the time, seemed
to be that the two sides didn't understand that fact, they just tried to
stubbornly apply their own cultural norms against each other. The point you
mention is a common British rationalization for the British convention, but
that point was probably only argued because that person didn't realize the
convention is different from country to country.

By Wikipedia conventions, incidentally, "Angels and Airwaves _is_ a band" is
correct because it's an American band and articles on American subjects are
written under American conventions, whereas "Emerson Lake & Palmer _are_ a
band" is correct because they are a British band. That didn't save that guy
from being blocked for a week, though (or maybe 8 days, I can't remember whose
block I extended.)

~~~
carussell
_It is a matter of British vs. American English_

It is correct to say that there is a difference between British English and
American English with regard to using "is" or "are" with collective nouns. It
is also correct to say that those kinds of disputes happen fairly regularly on
Wikipedia. It is _incorrect_ to say, however, that this particular argument
was an instance of that kind of dispute. I'll quote from the user himself,
since my own explanations seem to be inadequate here:

 _The reason why "are" is right is because the word Angels is plural (as in
more than one angel) and Airwaves (as in more than one airwave) is plural.
Without the "s" it makes it singular (proper noun). Again, leave it like this:
"Angels and Airwaves are", not "Angels and Airwaves is"._ \--Alex 101
([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAngels_%26_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAngels_%26_Airwaves&action=historysubmit&diff=40530211&oldid=40528991))

Here's another example: suppose you have a dog named Airwaves. Alex 101 would
argue that since you named your dog Airwaves ("as in more than one airwave"),
when you speak about certain characteristics of your dog, you should say
"Airwaves _are_ an obedient puppy.", rather than "Airwaves _is_ an obedient
puppy.". You can see that this has nothing to do with differences between
British English and American English; they're both in agreement here. By all
means you should say "Airwaves is an obedient puppy.".

The argument about British versus American English might be petty, but at
least there's some kind of substance to it. What Alex 101 was arguing on the
other hand, is just crazy.

For sure, later in the discussion there _was_ some mention of regional
differences in style, but it was neither the impetus for the argument, nor did
it constitute the bulk (or perhaps that should be the loudest?) part of the
dispute.

------
aufreak3
I cracked up when I saw the "war" about the time signature of Pink Floyd's
song "Money" - 7/8 or 7/4 or 21/8 :D

------
ErrantX
I'm pretty sure they are still arguing over the Jesus article (I got sucked
into it once, not pretty)

------
mynameishere
_Every_ article is a potential unsuspecting victim of an edit war.

