P.O. Box 98199
Washington, DC 20090-8199
800-647-5463
Lat/Lon: 38.90531943278526, -77.0376992225647
Would you believe that people are having an edit war over this [1]? Should the article say “Foam takeout containers are typically discarded after the food has been consumed and are rarely [[Recycling|recycled]]” or not? It is a burning issue.
All right, I know: people will war over anything.
Meanwhile, [2] is fun.
Wikipedia has a kind of “Hall of Fame” for its lamest edit wars (Shortcut: WP:LEW), and this seems like a probable future candidate for it.
I also fondly remember the day an admin got so fed up with the bickering going on behind the scenes of the “Emo” article that they replaced the whole thing with a redirect to “Elmo”. The edit summary was: “corrected obvious typo”.
Sic transit gloria Wikipedia.
Anal retention and obsessive micro-edits diminish from its usefulness.
An expert generally knows more and more about less and less. People only want interactional expertise from a (wiki/encylo)pedia and even that at entry level or basic textbook/ vade mecum level.
I don’t know much about wikipedia (or the internet for that matter), so let me know if this is ridiculous:
I think it’s clear that the statement should be included because 1. It’s true, 2. It’s short, 3. What else is there to say about those containers?
The only reason not to include the statement, I would guess, is that many other items don’t have a comment regarding the frequency with which the are(n’t) recycled. Is there pressure for wikipedia articles to be somewhat consistent across topics?
So, this was the “lamest edit war” around? No, this was the case of a TROLL reverting good faith edits and repeatedly choosing to use external links instead of references. Do you deserve to be an adminstrator with such snobbish comments like this? No, I believe you don’t. End of story.