User talk:DV8 2XL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You may leave a message here if you wish, however I will probably not see it for some time. If anyone needs to contact me please send e-mail to: dv82xl@gmail.com --DV8 2XL 01:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Comments on DV8 2XL's "exit statement" 2 Deleted disruptive rant by crank 3 Copied 4 Just a reminder... 5 Goodbye 6 Already missed

[edit] Comments on DV8 2XL's "exit statement"

I just spotted your user-page essay, via the message you left on User:Hillman's talk page. I absolutely agree with all your comments and I wish there was some way to make things better. –Joke 14:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

DV8 2XL wrote "Scanning my watch list, reverting vandals, cruft patrol, and troll abatement had become just another duty that had to be performed in a duty-filled day. Creating new content, the reason I joined the project, had become more the exception than the rule." This is exactly the frustration numerous other long-time editors have expressed, and as he notes, this lamentable phenomenon has been noted by several print media critics of Wikipedia, including Stacy Schiff in the New Yorker; see User:Hillman/Media commentary on Wikipedia. I suggest that frustration over an increasingly absurd amount of time devoted to cruft control and policy discussion is approaching a crisis point, and that Wikipedia is in danger of losing an entire generation of its most devoted and experienced contributors. Even worse, if this problem is not addressed, the next generation will also be lost, after a probably shorter "disillusionment time".

I like the term "stakeholder" and will try to incorporate it into my own policymaking essays (if I ever find time to finish them!). I also think DV8 2XL has hit on a key point when he mentions "egalitarianism"; this goes right back to the early essay by Larry Sanger (see User:Hillman/Media commentary on Wikipedia for a link) warning of the danger posed by the populist anti-intellectual anti-elitist political philosophy of the Wikipedia community. I think that what many editors are discovering is that a complete egalitarianism, where some anon IP vandal has the same privileges as a long-time contributor, is not in the best interests of either our readers or our contributors.

DV8 2XL has identified a troubling paradox when he writes "the more effort that is made to defend the integrity of the Project, the more valuable a target for exploitation by malicious editors it becomes." This is an interesting--- and disturbing--- refinement of the oft-expressed idea that as Wikipedia becomes one of the most popular websites on the planet, the Google-Wikipedia synergy (which DV8 2XL also mentions in his essay) becomes an increasingly tempting target for organized efforts to disrupt the project (one of the most disturbing new developments is Gregory Koh's arguments that Wikipedia must legalize and regulate wikimercernaries, on the grounds that this is better than trying to proscribe an uncontrollable activity, which appears to have convinced Jimmy Wales, which would certainly raise some questions in my mind about how serious Jimbo really is about the Year of Quality).

DV8 2XL well describes the frustration of technically able and scientifically knowledgeable cruft controllers when he writes "A few months before I left I was treated to the spectacle of no less than six editors claiming Phds trying to reason one of these idiots out of his notions of the existence of a ceramic gas, and thinking what waste of talent. In the end the crank had to be brought before ArbCom and was subsequently barred, but only after tying up mine and several other editors time for months. Undaunted, this individual has opened several sockpuppet accounts and continues to push his ideas on the same pages he was barred from. The fiction is that these people need to be educated in the ways of the 'pedia - the truth is that by in large they are beyond redemption because they are parasites, scofflaws or insane." Well said! While I was not aware of this particular incident, this kind of absurdly time wasting experience is exactly what I am talking about when I decry the absurdly time consuming social mechanisms currently deployed to reign in problem editors.

I have yet to write my essay describing "edit creep", but briefly put, this the phenomenon by which good writing is gradually replaced by bad writing. This occurs when well-intentioned but clumsy editors who are

1. native speakers of English who happen to be inexperienced or careless writers,
2. editors whose enthusiasm greatly exceeds their command on the English language (which is certainly not the world's easiest to learn as a foreign language)

through inattention/inexperience gradually

1. introduce poor diction/grammar,
2. remove stylish flourishes (such as taking advantage of the huge vocabulary of English by using an unusual word with certain connotations),
3. mindlessly "modernize" vocubulary in a period quotation from say the American Civil War, sometimes turning sense into nonsense (e.g. if the older term is discussed in a succeeding paragraph, which now has no referent),
4. break the symmetry of verb tense,
5. introduce new material with utter disregard for pre-existing structure, thus breaking a well constructed paragraph structure,
6. generally destroy the previously thoughtful and well-crafted flow of ideas,

thus gradually rendering a well written article which is a joy to read an almost unreadable mess. When DV8 2XL writes "other irritants include those that feel the need to 'polish' otherwise stable articles with bad grammar and oversimplifications; editors for whom English is a second tongue but have no grasp of this language's idiom making a stand on what they perceive the meaning to be" he is talking about edit creep.

(By the way, writing for the Wikipedia is clearly an excellent way for inexperienced writers to improve their writing skills; our complaint is however that such writers shouldn't be given free reign to "experiment" with a former featured article before they have demonstrated sufficient writing skills to alter such a already good article.)

Regarding the fact (I hope we can stipulate that this is a fact!) that the existing sociopolitical structures at Wikipedia for dealing with problem editors are completely overwhelmed, DV8 2XL says: "the solution, as I see it, is to create a much larger pool of arbitrators who would accept cases earlier in the conflict, and expand the purview of arbitration to include violations of basic policy." Unfortunately, it is far from clear to me where this pool would be drawn from. In my own case, I feel that I am still virtually the only Wikipedian who knows enough about certain areas of mainstream gtr (exact solutions, gravitomagnetism, gravitational radiation, energy of the gravitational field, Mach principle/"rotating frames" and other frame-field related stuff, etc.) to comment in dozens of cases involving gtr-related crackpottery (see WikiProject Physics for some very misleading but still unaddressed problem articles which I noted after my departure; a glance at my watchlist shows much less activity in articles I created, but only because after I left the cranks rushed in to alter these articles to present their dissident viewpoints!), but my expertise is better put to content creation which someone of lesser knowledge cannot possibly accomplish. So I don't know where these new ArbCommers would be drawn from. I think the solution must lie instead in some kind of "stabilization/bastion" scheme which puts better and better articles inside concentric rings, and requires that only higher and higher graded editors can alter these. Clearly such schemes will be very difficult to design and implement, even if the political seachange they would require can be brought about. ---CH 20:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph about the article on which six PhDs wasted their time trying to stop one crank from introducing his dissident viewpoints – uranium trioxide if I am not mistaken – also struck me as chilling, as sort of a grotesque version of my own experience on Wikipedia. I am surprised this issue hasn't been taken up in the media coverage of the encyclopedia more.

In any case, I think you're both right. Probably the solution will eventually involve a much expanded ArbCom as well as some kind of content-blessing system. Both these seem to be in the works, in their way, but given the Wikipedia's policy of extreme gradualism, I think their appearance won't have much effect for many months to come. –Joke 21:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

While I could and probably would dispute various individual points DV8 2XL and Hillman have raised (I'm a born contrarian), I find myself in agreement with their overall conclusions. I will probably leave the WP out of general burnout before these issues drive me away, but that is just a matter of my quirky personality and the trouble it causes. For the moment, let me just say that CH's remark about a "stabilization/bastion" scheme echoes some recent thoughts of my own. Last week or thereabouts, I thought of a way to implement such a scheme without a "political seachange"; perhaps the next time I have extremely important work to procrastinate upon, I'll be able to organize my thoughts on this into a nice essay and sample the community responses. Anville 22:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, do tell! Or I'll go do something useful (somewhere other than WP)! :-/ ---CH 22:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I thank you all for your responses to what was a poorly written bit of bile. I had hoped that some time away would let me recharge, however lurking about for a few days before posting to my user page I realized in disappointment and anger there was no coming back unless there were significant changes.

I suggested that ArbCom be expanded as beginning after some thought and some poking about in other 'departments' of this place. CH, I am familiar with your ideas in these matters, and I agree that what you have suggested would be ideal in the sci/tech articles; what I cannot see is how they could be applied to some of the softer topics. Nor am I sure that having different rules for different parts of the Wiki is workable, or ideologically acceptable.

You are right about the problem of finding more arbitrators, although I would think that even quadrupling the current pool would allow cases to be dealt with earlier in the conflict cycle and perhaps settled more expediently.

The issue of Wikimercenaries was brought up in an e-mail I received from another person I used to edit with, wondering if I would like to join him and three others in such an effort should this become legal. I declined, not on ethical grounds, but because I could not imagine that I would be interested at all in Wikipedia should it turn in that direction. I am not a fool. In the company that I work for the PR folks wrote and maintain/guard the article on us, and this is also true of the town I live in and these are not unique cases, so there are payed editors in the strict sense of the word. However I believe (or at least their actions lead me to believe) that they know they are working outside the Pale, and govern themselves accordingly. To licence this activity is an incubus for more trouble than the cranks, vandals, and incompetent put together.

Chris, You asked on your talk page if I would stick about for a while to help. I'll be glad to, just ask and I will do what I can. Get me by e-mail if I'm not responding here. DV8 2XL 02:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted disruptive rant by crank

I removed a pointless tirade (personal attack removed). Allow me to take my leave with some measure of decorum: please don't revert it back. DV8 2XL 00:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the word "crank" is a personal attack, and as continued and repeated victim I object to it, and the fact that DV8 2XL has repeatedly refused to remove it here along with the similar attacks on his main user page.

Those who are interested in the details of this subject can find them at Talk:Uranium trioxide#Discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. I am disheartened by the number of people who apparently feel that links to that discussion should not remain in place. Is the evidence so overwhelming that censorship is the only remaining alternative for the other side of this argument? LossIsNotMore 03:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copied

I copied your comments on the 'Elsewhere' page onto the ER page, as though I am no longer involved in it, your comments were good. Dbuckner 09:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a reminder...

Just a reminder to make sure that any proposed soltion you add to User:LinaMishima/Experts Problem has a clear enough basis from the listed or speculated problems, and can you make sure that no discussion of the problems themselves appear in that section? We do really need to make sure the reasoning is watertight and complete from real established problems by several users (and ideally are issues for the overall community as a whole). LinaMishima 21:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goodbye

I gave it one last shot, to see if some coordinated effort could be mounted to address some of the issues that drove me and others from this wiki. Unfortunately it seems that while everyone agrees that there is a problem, no one has the stomach to put words into action and take the steps necessary to bring this issue to a head. I suggested that we call a Editors Strike, and was told we need to dialog with the leadership of the wiki. It is my feeling that Wales knows damned well what is going on and probably knows the steps that are needed to bring it under control. If not for ideological reasons then because of some other agenda he chooses not to and that is his prerogative. It is my prerogative not to participate in this project if I feel my time is being wasted, and I continue to be frustrated by the actions of others who seem to wish to destroy what other have built.

I wish all of you good luck,

goodbye. --DV8 2XL 00:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Happy trails, friend. Dr U 00:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel sad that I have to say goodbye to one of my friends, a quote from Evita comes to mind right now... "Where do we go from here ?".Cadmium 08:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's too bad you've left before I even got to meet you. It's because there are less people like you, scientists, engineers, people who make the world move, that (in America at least) science knowledge has declined so badly. The fact that uninformed people go to Wikipedia to learn about a scientific topic or concept or machine is more the reason to make sure that those articles stay as close to facts and science as possible. So many other websites copy Wikipedia verbatim. I couldn't care less if the page on some pop star isn't absolutely correct, but science?? Sad. (Gaviidae) 82.93.133.130 13:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Already missed

Might I say that the mere fact that you have left the projects makes me feel hopeless for the project for I forsee many others in your situation. I think that there are not enough experts and that we do a poor job in keeping them.

Thanks for the note you left on your user page and for the time you gave to WP as a great participant. Lincher 01:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)