User:Jacqui M/Wiki-soapbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page contains thoughts about how I feel about various policies and facets of Wikipedia.

I recently switched to the Cologne Blue skin. I like it. :)

1 Eventualism
2 About inclusion standards and what actually gets included on Wikipedia

[edit] Eventualism

Remember, even the New York Times sucked once:

"It is an unpleasant reflection, but nevertheless a fact, that the exceeding parsimony of the city admitted only of a flag to cover the coffin, not much larger than a boy's toy banner, and a hearse that might be classified among the shabby-genteel." — front page review of a statesman's funeral, January 1, 1865. ...doesn't that sound like a gossip rag?

[edit] About inclusion standards and what actually gets included on Wikipedia

Wikipedia is not Encyclopedia Brittanica, and thank god. This means that we can correct errors quickly, and also that we don't have to have the same kinds of inclusion standards. Some people think the latter is a detriment, but I see it as an opportunity.

I end up debating on WP:AFD a lot. I've probably made some mistakes there. (Actually, I know I have. I might actually elaborate at some point; stay tuned.) Please point out if I am arguing a certain AfD nom one way when I have argued a similar nom in another way entirely. However, also let me evolve in my opinions.

My hope, when I add to the debate in AfD, is that, whether or not you agree with me, you will at least think that my line of reasoning is logical. I like pointing out options that people did not think of; a lot of times that includes a suggestion of a merge, which many people don't think of if they are stuck in a keep-delete binary. I also hope to point out when an AfD nom is trying to solve something that could be solved in another way (cleanup, arbitration, etc), especially as we all know that AfD is getting very large as Wikipedia grows, and AfD is not cleanup, nor arbitration.

[edit] Lists and categories

I wish people would listen to WP:CLS:

"Wikipedia offers three ways to create groupings of articles: categories, lists, and article series boxes. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, and each is appropriate in different circumstances.

These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other."

Too many lists go up on AFD because "there's already a category." There is nothing stopping us from having both categories and lists for things. If both are working, great. Don't mess with it. Let the user search how s/he wants to. Now, if a list does not add any information, annotations should be added. That's part of what lists are for. Also, certain kinds of lists need strict criteria in order to render them maintainable. But actually add the stuff instead of sending the list to AfD. AfD is not cleanup. (I said that already, didn't I? Well, it bears repeating.) If one finds that there really isn't anything worth adding as an annotation to the list, or that proper criteria is impossible to formulate because of the nature of the list in question, well, then we can start talking about deletion.

The one caveat I have about lists is that a list is a lot easier to spam than a category, in my opinion. If the list is about something that is likely to be attacked (web sites, sex positions, etc), it would probably be best to at least use categories as a backup in case the list becomes overspammed and therefore unmaintainable.

[edit] "The Google test"

The following is surprising to many people -- I don't like Google that much, or at least its search capabilities for the average person. It has very low precision (see information retrieval) when most people use it. I am looking forward to learning more about using Google effectively when I work toward an MLIS (Master of Library and Information Science), though, and I really do enjoy Google Earth.

Here on Wikipedia, I think the "Google test" can be a relevent tool when discussing the legitimacy of certain topics, but just because you can't find something on Google doesn't mean it's not important. Haven't you heard of books? Actually, this Wikipedia link lists a whole bunch of ways to find information for articles: Wikipedia:Library and Information Science basic topics.

[edit] Daniel Brandt

Yes, I think Brandt should have his own page. No, I don't think he's a "crackpot." And I certainly agree with him about Gmail — it is creepy!

Brandt's concerns about Wikipedia are not entirely without merit, but I disagree with much of what he says. I agree that Wikipedia can be misused to spin a product or defame a person, and we as editors need to be on top of those issues and shut them down whenever we can. But I think instead of not having articles on people or products, the proper response on our end is to be responsible in admitting that we are not as reputable a source precisely because of what can be considered a strength in many other situations.

Wikipedia can be a great tool for finding perspectives and sources that you didn't know existed, but my "library science" mind admits that I would not send a patron solely to this site. Information here must be verified elsewhere. But if people don't have the facts regarding the verifiability of much of the Intarweb, the answer is to educate them regarding the subject, not to shut Internet articles or sites down.

[edit] What doesn't get written?

I also don't like when people don't bother to write an article on Wikipedia simply because the information isn't currently online. I believe that this is one of the main reasons why many legitimate article topics are being neglected, while cruft grows and grows. In general I don't have a problem with some amount of cruft, and I don't think I'm a deletionist (more of a mergist, actually, I think). What I'm saying is that there are certain topics that are almost completely neglected on Wikipedia, partially because people are lazy and won't go to their library, and that needs to change.