User:Kosebamse/thoughts
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] My thoughts
[edit] On common sense and the lack thereof
(from [1])
(...) Quickpolls add still more bureaucracy, and we already have way too much of that. People violate policies all the time, so what? Other people correct the damage done. Methinks we need fewer policies, not more (to be quite honest, three would be enough: Respect your fellow Wikipedians / Respect NPOV and the GFDL / When in doubt, apply common sense)
[edit] On encyclopedicness
(from [2])
(...) I would not look into an encyclopedia to find out a zip code. And I hereby propose a test of encyclopedicness: IF an average user has a question and would FIRST think of looking into an (traditional or other) encyclopedia for an answer (and not into a telephone directory, Google, textbook, dictionary, etc.), THEN the matter belongs into an encyclopedia. See also Wikipedia:Unencyclopedic (...)
[edit] On vanity
(from [3])
There are indeed several problems with vanity pages, of which I will mention a few:
- Content. It is difficult to verify the content of pages such as Daniel C. Boyer or Florentin Smarandache. It is, however, safe to assume that they are biased. Even if there is independent information about little-known persons, it may take much time and work to find it.
- Relevance. Enycyclopedia readers expect relevant content. Self-promotional pages are not likely to be relevant, perhaps with the exception of really important people whose views about themselves may be of some interest.
- Authorship. That is the most serious problem here. No serious encyclopedia (scientific journal, publisher, etc) would allow its authors to glorify themselves in articles. I can't see why Wikipedia should. Methinks that such "articles" should be banned altogether.The very least that must be done is to make it policy that such pages contain warnings that they are autobiographic and should therefore be viewed as biased, and that they must be short and modest. Without a clear-cut policy about conflicts of interest, Wikipedia will not look credible to critical readers.
- Intent. "Shameless self-promotion" - that seems to describe the thing very well. Wikipedia is not a showcase for personal vanities, and all attemps to use it as such are violations of the Wikipedia spirit.
In view of all this, I think it might be best to get rid of these pages altogether. An alternative solution might be to create a separate namespace (or even a project of its own) for biographies, (auto- or other). Nobody expects to find independently-verified truth in an autobiography. If biographies presented themselves apart from the encyclopedia and it were made obvious what is autobiographical and what is not, the damage to Wikipedia's credibility could be mitigated.
[edit] Wikipedia's power structure
(from [4])
"...I don't believe that Wikipedia is an anarchy. I would rather say that there are many interwoven power structures and levels of hierarchy, some self-governed and some not so self-governed, most of which are not obvious to the casual visitor. If I had to pick one I would call it a meritocracy."
[edit] Thoughts by other Wikipedians
[edit] On inclusionism
A precise diagnosis of one of Wikipedia's central problems is given in this mailing list post by Louis Kyu Won Ryu. To summarize it: "Inclusivity bias" and lack of community support discourage highly qualified and interested Wikipedians from improving poor articles.
Comment: The increasing dominance of irrelevant junk, unopposed bias, vanity content and unresolved (perhaps unresolvable) partisan wars in our database is distressing. And even in the few months that I have been here, I have felt that a decline in cultural values (openness, friendlyness, tolerance of criticism, NPOV, scientific standards) is going on. This is a slippery slope.
[edit] On POV pushers
Daniel Quinlan writes: "(...) An extended period of editing articles has convinced me that the NPOV policy does not work. Many articles at Wikipedia have evolved into agenda vehicles and Wikipedia lacks the will and the technology to allow neutral authors to effectively overrule vocal minorities pushing various agendas. Since neutral editors must be just as vocal as those minorities, it just takes too much time to keep up with people who have more free time to bias Wikipedia, and it never ends. There are many good articles at Wikipedia and great people, but I came here to support a project representative of general human knowledge, not this. I suppose this will be a victory of sorts for some (...)"
Comment: Very true, and very sad. The extent to which bullies with an agenda are tolerated here is certainly one of Wikipedia's weakest points, and a danger to NPOV itself.
[edit] On common sense
Snowspinner writes:
"Wikipedia policy, or, at least, what exists of it in a codified fashion, is exceedingly well written, flexible, and, on some occasions, manages the rare feat of being funny as well. Unfortunately, codified Wikipedia policy changes at a speed that can generally be outstripped by a VW Bug in park.
There is a school of thought within Wikipedia that there exist policies that are not written down. I am a firm believer in this school of thought. The rules of Wikipedia are not a suicide pact, and attempts to slavishly follow the rules when one of the rules is to ignore all rules is an exercise in absurdism.
To put it another way, from IRC:
Raul654: oh, and snowspinner, I've come to a conclusion Raul654: making policy on wikipedia is hard Raul654: because there are people who oppose any common sense measures JamesF: Raul> Indeed. Snowspinner: Yes. I came to that conclusion as well. Raul654: I have decided that it's better to shoot first and ask questions later ;) Snowspinner: Cool. Snowspinner: I'm in that camp too now. Raul654: seriously Raul654: don't worry about making common sense policy Raul654: just do things with common sense Raul654: and wait for policy to catch up
Use common sense."
[edit] What Wikipedia is
Charles Matthews writes here: "[...] Pick your metaphor. WP is an oasis of relative sanity on the Web, which neither sells nor preaches. WP is a hive, with a complex social scheme to produce free honey."
And in another post: "I would say that Wikipedia [...] has found its niche. [...] On the plus side: good at documenting factual things and gluing them into an intensely-hyperlinked and presentable, categorised form, miles ahead of the 'web directory' approach. Particularly strong at rehashing what is already out there to be googled, or in the mainstream media. Weaknesses: always been over-ambitious and searching for a style, rather than already possessed of one. To call WP's role a 'niche' is a bit like calling the Mariana Trench a shallow ditch, though. The Web contains things like 'shopping mall', 'personal webspace', 'blogosphere'. Wikipedia is the cuckoo in the nest of the 'wikisphere', certainly to the extent of redefining it."
[edit] More on common sense
From User:Mindspillage:
Because I've taken to ranting and raving about policy lately: The primary rule I go by is Use Common Sense. Which is a meta-rule that goes hand-in-hand with meta:Don't be a dick and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, and supersedes all others. It goes with Wikipedia:Assume good faith as it is written, which states that one should assume good faith "until bad faith makes itself known". It goes with Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:Civility, because common sense states that working with people will get better results than working against them. It balances Wikipedia:No original research with Wikipedia:Common knowledge. It tempers the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule with discretion and good judgment. Use Common Sense governs all of these.
Written policy is good, particularly when it clarifies unwritten rules, making things more transparent. But the increasingly legalistic letter-of-the-law interpretations are disturbing. We are a community that exists to build an encyclopedia. Our primary purpose is to build that encyclopedia, and we cannot do it if the community is continually too busy sniping at each other and testing the rules to actually write articles. We cannot do it if we are so worried about possibly offending someone that contributors of proven good quality are driven off by trolls and POV-pushers. We cannot do it if new contributors are driven off by a Byzantine system of rules and made to feel like outsiders for not being intimately familiar with everything that has gone before. Use common sense.
