1

I found an article ( http://www.wikihow.com/Breed-Hamsters ) on breeding hamsters. I get that wikihow is meant to be “how to do anything”, but the reality is that the internet is NOT a place to learn to breed hamsters. Breeding hamsters is much more complicated than the article implies. It is taking the lives of up to 20 hamsters or more into your own hands. Also, let’s remember that ANYBODY can edit wikihow - One incorrect edit and a huge amount of hamsters could die when if they had been bred by a proper breeder, or perhaps someone learning to breed with the guidance of proper breeder, would have survived and gone on to lead happy lives with a good owner.

2

We are not here to dictate what Wikihow and the Internet is and isn’t for. We are here to write articles, and unless an article like the mentioned is violating policy, we have no right to NFD it. Instead of NFDing it, I would implore you to edit it, make it better.

3

+1 I don’t see anything wrong with this article, too.

4

Yeah, I really don’t see anything wrong either. : )

5

Hi @Toilet sock , I had the same issue with the article “How to break up a locker”. Though it was referred to a person’s locker who lost his key but I was concerned that with this instructions one is able to break up any locker in a school. I posted on Forum and was told that wikiHow is not responsible for any possible wrong-doings.

6

I would recommend looking up how to improve the article yourself. Research the subject and contribute. Remember that all information and edits must always be approved by at least two people to make a successful edit.

7

LOL! Let’s just mention the tag line of wikiHow here… "We’re trying to help everyone on the planet learn how to do anything. " Let’s just ALSO mention that Hamsters have survived several hundred years of being bred by inept humans… mostly prepubescent children… so I seriously doubt that anything in a wikiHow article could put any appreciable dent in the hamster population of the world at this point. Thanks for your concern just the same.

8

all i can say is if you think that there are any accuracy issuses, then i would suggest researching futher into the topic and or starting a discussion page for the article and see what can be improved, you may also do reasearch out side the internet and add it to the artical though remember to cite your sources when adding or correcting infromation. also note that blogs and personal websites are oftne not good souces for infomation for creating a articale. hope this helps. that is all i can say, when you bump into articals that have incorrect information. remember you are free to edit and make changes as long as it follows the rules and policies here at wiki how. have any questions then let any of the editors or users like us or all of us know.

9

if you have something to add to the article, you can edit it. no big deal.

10

Yeah, but ANYBODY can edit it, it’s a wiki. One of the morons from yahoo answers could put something like “MAKE SYRIAN AND ROBOROVSKI HYBRIDS!” which would result in probably the Roborovski being killed by the Syrian. Also, @Loiswade42 - children rarely breed hamsters. Any parent who lets their kids do that is an idiot.

11

I think, @Toilet-sock , that you have to take the larger view here: This subject is but one example of many articles that could be edited inappropriately to create something that is dangerous, harmful, or just plain wrong. The community has chosen to openly invite editors to change articles as they see fit and has put in place a protection layer whereby each edit is screened by another individual in Recent Changes Patrol. We have to rely on that line of defense to be alert to and react to anything untoward. This system seems to work well, particularly since someone who is doing mischief tends to do so serially, that is, plays with several articles. This gives many chances for that mischief-maker to show up on an experienced, diligent patroller’s radar. At that point, many patrollers take the time to survey the mischief-maker’s entire body of contributions, and to coach, warn, and make corrections as necessary. If a mischief-maker’s edit is reverted, the reversion is reviewed too, providing yet another chance for the entire body of contributions by the mischief-maker to be reviewed. What results is a system that is surprisingly more robust at turning back untoward edits than one would think or expect. The reality is that it is impossible to be proactive by protecting every last article that might be turned into bad advice, misused, or become dangerous or harmful. Taking the proactive tack would choke off freely given contributions and chase away good-faith contributors, making it hard for the body of helpful information to grow. Please take console from the results of a decade of contributions: Much good has been created and little that is harmful survives. To do things any other way would unravel the fabric of wikiHow.