<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>pflats</author><text>You kinda have to put it together, but the other author comes across to me as disingenuous and dismissive. Look at the edit log and the talk page together.&lt;p&gt;Wikipedian, 4&amp;#x2F;19: Deletes &lt;i&gt;one new section&lt;/i&gt; of the article that he disagrees with. Entire comment is: &amp;quot; (-1,214)‎ . . (→‎Typhoid Mary:  not a super-spreader. she was an asymptomatic carrier; super-spreaders are symptomatic)&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Student: 4&amp;#x2F;19: &amp;quot;There was dispute about whether or not asymptomatic carriers could be considered super-spreaders.&amp;quot; Defends her position with un-Wikipedia-esque speech, reverts deletion.&lt;p&gt;Wikepedian: 4&amp;#x2F;20 &lt;i&gt;Deletes every single thing the student contributed&lt;/i&gt;. (This is where things go off the rails.)&lt;p&gt;Wikipedian: &amp;quot;Also, I&amp;#x27;m not aware of any &amp;quot;dispute as to whether or not asymptomatic carriers should be considered super-spreaders&amp;quot;, so perhaps you could also provide a source for that.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;The source of the dispute is that he reverted her edit; of course it exists.&lt;p&gt;The student then comes back with a source to defend that Typhoid Mary is considered a super carrier by serious sources, and gets no response.&lt;p&gt;Further, if you look at what the editor excised, it was a sincere edit, well-sourced, and deserved at least a modicum of respect for trying to help his pet project.</text><parent_chain><item><author>fixermark</author><text>If I understand correctly, the &amp;quot;Talk&amp;quot; page on Wikipedia also has an archived edit history.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m looking at the most recent version [&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super-spreader&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Talk:Super-spreader&lt;/a&gt;] and the revisions [&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super-spreader&amp;amp;action=history&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;w&amp;#x2F;index.php?title=Talk:Super-spreade...&lt;/a&gt;], and I&amp;#x27;m having a hard time seeing the bullying---it looks like an individual defending an edit, another individual defending the revert with explanation of what is missing, and the first individual adding additional data to clarify that the original edit isn&amp;#x27;t &amp;quot;original research.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Can someone help highlight the bullying for me? Is there a subsection of the Talk history that I&amp;#x27;m missing &amp;#x2F; can Talk history be deleted?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Using Wikipedia in the classroom: a cautionary tale</title><url>http://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/using-wikipedia-in-the-classroom-a-cautionary-tale/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Hermel</author><text>I think the problem are the reverts without specific explanations. As far as I see, the student corrected all the specific errors that were pointed out. Reverting an article of someone who put a lot of effort into creating it without giving a clear and specific explanation is frustrating.</text><parent_chain><item><author>fixermark</author><text>If I understand correctly, the &amp;quot;Talk&amp;quot; page on Wikipedia also has an archived edit history.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m looking at the most recent version [&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super-spreader&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Talk:Super-spreader&lt;/a&gt;] and the revisions [&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Super-spreader&amp;amp;action=history&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;w&amp;#x2F;index.php?title=Talk:Super-spreade...&lt;/a&gt;], and I&amp;#x27;m having a hard time seeing the bullying---it looks like an individual defending an edit, another individual defending the revert with explanation of what is missing, and the first individual adding additional data to clarify that the original edit isn&amp;#x27;t &amp;quot;original research.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;Can someone help highlight the bullying for me? Is there a subsection of the Talk history that I&amp;#x27;m missing &amp;#x2F; can Talk history be deleted?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Using Wikipedia in the classroom: a cautionary tale</title><url>http://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/using-wikipedia-in-the-classroom-a-cautionary-tale/</url></story>