User:Kaustuv/phil
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WP philosophy
Notability and deletion
- Speedy deletion is a model of precision and clarity that AfD should aim for.
- When contributing a new article, I believe an editor should explain in the talk page why the subject is notable; why the treatment of it is comprehensive, neutral, and encyclopedic; and what steps the editor has taken to find reliable secondary sources to substantiate all possibly controversial statements. This explanation need not be NPOV itself, of course, but the intention is that a well justified article should require exceptional effort to even write a good faith AfD.
- The notability threshold for bloggers, entertainers, fictional entities and popular culture should be raised. Contrariwise, the threshold for academics, financial and industrial leaders, and politicians should be lowered.
Interactions between editors
I disagree significantly with the official policy of civility and find the etiquette guidelines entirely superfluous. I believe that positive reinforcement in serious projects inevitably leads to charisma dominating over substance. In a virtual setting where we are freed of the tedium of tolerating each other's presence, we ought to be more open and honest with our disagreements. I do not mean by this that editors should feel free to attack each other as that comes under the jurisdiction of NPA, which is inviolable; nor do I think editors should be rude or unnecessarily negative. Rather, I hold that neutral treatment of fellow editors is the sine qua non of NPOV.
Adminship
After watching the RfA process for several months, I've now become firmly convinced that adminship—and the lure thereof—is unhealthy for editors and detrimental to the project.
The core of my criticism is that the concept of support/oppose standards is flawed. Too often these are being treated as support or opposition of the person instead of the nomination, and thereby giving a person free reign to express unjustifiably negative opinions about other editors in the guise of brutal objectivity. As stated above, I believe an editor should neither support, not oppose, an editor; rather, edits must be examined for value and supported or opposed independent of who made them.
I have seen unfortunately few instances where sysop'd editors balance their administrative tasks with editing and improving articles in mainspace. Administration should be for the inbetween hours, not the primary activity. Editors who do not edit or improve articles as their main activity quickly lose the editor's perspective and adopt a voice of authority when it comes to content. This is detrimental to the project. True authority over content must be predicated on expertise in the subject, not expertise in garnering community support. (Some may call me a Sangerite here.)
The ridiculously high standards employed by some in RfA is feeding into the false superiority granted to admins. I support Mr. Wales's original characterisation of adminship as "no big deal", and think adminship should not be treated as membership among the elite. In this regard, the standards for RfA should be "is this an editor in good standing?", not "has this user made a case for why he needs sysop rights?" Too many people, I think, are making adminship a big deal.
I also believe that those who are concerned about the quality of Wikipedia articles should avoid the lure of adminship as best as they can. They can do more good as a user than they can as an admin, because their edits and opinions will not be tainted with false authority. I wonder if there is a cabal of wikipedians who are concerned about quality but not desirous of adminship (WWACAQBNDOA); I would consider joining it if it did exist.
Kaustuv's Laws of Wikipedia
- Any so-called "law" of Wikipedia you might find in the user: space is not actually a law; it is merely an observation, and possibly a rule of thumb.
