Wikipedia - a neglected opportunity

[Justin I]

I usually try to fill out articles that don't really have anything. For example, the entry on Antigonus I Monophthalmus was almost blank when I first saw it a few years ago, so I fleshed it out with some details from his career. I see some other people have added even more since my edits.
I only use Wikipedia for extremely unimportant details (I'm a journalist by trade) that don't matter anyway. If a controversial subject is being debated on Wikipedia, it's probably not the sort of thing you'd want to use Wikipedia to learn about in the first place.

[Macedon]

Wikipedia can be a tough battleground... I have also contributed to many articles in the past and I am generally pleased as to how it evolves. Admittedly, it can be frustrating to see many good efforts changed in a matter of hours but in overall, I would say that the majority of its articles are indeed improving, albeit much more slowly than they could, were it not that "democratic" in nature and sometimes controlled by inadequate (however admirable for their efforts) admins. I have generally found it more rewarding for me to add new articles (like terminology) than try to amend old ones, as these are rarely touched and debated over. It has been many years since I was active in Wikipedia but it surely was a worth-while experience.

[Eleatic Guest]

The point is that Wikipedia requires effort, stick something that someone else thinks is contentious on a Wikipedia article and you need to defend it - walk away and it will be changed. This is why I suggested that a group of editors should be formed to reform the Ancient warfare articles - there is strength in numbers, as everything on Wikipedia is done through consensus. Get enough support from other well-informed editors and you can win any argument.

I made a similar proposal seven years ago: RAT goes Wikipedia - A proposal

Not much happened in terms of a coordinated effort on RAT in the meantime.

[Urselius]

A pity, it can be a frustrating medium to use but nothing has a higher online profile.

[A_Volpe]

Ugh. I had a similar thing happen with the entry on Leg III Cyr. as Dr Bishop had. I had spent a lot of time in my own research and writing of what we knew and what we didn't, and edited the entry, then, it got re-worked by someone else, etc.

But, I've since come across a number of books and materials on Roman-Egypt, although not as specific on the Legions, but it's
something, so the current article I'm marginally OK with, as the new research has brought up more and more questions and blurred more and more of what I thought I knew, so, hopefully I'll have the gumption to re-re-re-edit the entry and hope for the best.

[Alanus]

Go for it, Andy!
Any additional, and accurate, material we can have on Legio III Cyrenaica is a step forward. :-)