User:El C/Approach
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Approach to being a WP contributing editor
Exhibiting courtesy, rationality; being epistemic, encyclopedic, et cetera, etc. Tis a fine balalnce (i.e. I'll finish it tommorow, or something!).
[edit] Scholarly but not scholastic
WP articles should offer something for the hypothetical student of any level. At times, jargon needs to be used, but meanings should be made explicit and not be overused. Overspecialized pharaseology should be avoided whenever possible.
[edit] Clear but not simplistic
The risk at the other end is compromising the complexity of issues to attain clarity. Instead, an entry that might be sufficient for a dictionary, as clear as it may first appear, would be unclear for an encyclopedia (i.e. grammatically coherent, but with an oversimplification which distorts understanding).
[edit] Broad but not reductionistic
Many articles require broad analyses and syntheses, in doing so, the writer risks reducing various complexities into overgeneralized terms. As mentioned above, this may grant an initial impression of simplicity, but in fact the article will lose its insight into the subject matter.
[edit] Educational but not pedantic
It is easy to lose patience with those whom one considers possess a lesser understanding than themselves per any given topic, but special care needs to be taken in order for one to explain him or herself without becoming condescending. One should always assume a willingness to learn on the part of other wikipedians unless there is stark evidence to the contrary.
[edit] Logical but not tautological
The logic of an encyclopedia article cannot be internal (except perhaps in articles dedicated to categorical logic!). An item considered to be logical needs to be corroborated with facts and evidence, and humility, tact and poignancy.
[edit] Academic but not journalistic
This means that the language should follow that of academia rather than newspapers. Isn't should be is not, should'nt should be should not. Likewise, the content for a WP needs to more-or-less live up to academic standards rather than those of journalism (though there are decent newspapers out there, and thankfully no one in any university has yet to think of establishing a department of journalism — that would seriously go towards defeating my point here).
[edit] Specific but not trivial
Providing a wide array of details is often useful, especially for articles pertaining to history. Still, there is always that risk and that fine (or not so fine) line in which details turn into mere trivia. There's nothing wrong with a little bit of trivia, but as a general rule, I think this should be left for those who write articles about pop stars et al., and less so for what we (conventionally) consider 'history.'
[edit] Concise but not excessively condensed
As one attempts to be concise, not wasting words or being long-winded (winded), one risks becoming excessively condensed — that is, the article becomes less readable, with sentences which do not flow correctly. I myself have been accused of committing this error (and I accepted that criticism, sorta). As a general rule, shortened terms should be made clear (in parentheses, etc.), while sentences & paragraphs should exhibit connectedness and a logical flow.
[edit] Creative but not anecdotal
Being creative is, of course, desirable but in an encyclopedia, creativity needs to have an acceptable basis. Creative thoughts, theories, concepts, constructs, etc. should not be applied simply on a whim. Rather, they should be unremittingly challenged by their creator or proponent against hitherto approaches.
[edit] Balanced but not politically-correct
Everyone hates political-correctness — 'everyone (except maybe a couple of folks back east). When political-correctness (as it is commonly understood) becomes -the- motivation behind 'balance' issues, the content of the respective articles is likely to suffer. This does not mean that one should behave in an intentionally politically-incorrect manner (again, as it is commonly understood), that is even worse, and nobody likes that (except, again, possibly ... ).
[edit] Objective but not awkwardly neutral
By extension, sometimes the attempt to contribute to the neutrality of an article assumes a life of its own, neutrality for its own sakes if you will. We all know that neutrality is unattainable (yet we all strive towards it), but sometimes what appears to be such an effort is simply awkward and flawed. This is especially likely to take place when the 'neutralizer' is not very familiar with a given topic.
[edit] Authoritative but not orthodox
An article which involves sciences needs to have the authoritative views in any given field (in the case of history, historiography) clearly outlined. But this could turn into orthodoxy when new views, which may prove to have merit, are not taken into account (and, of course, one needs to know that these exist to begin with).
[edit] Argumentative but not polemical
Articles about history tend to be constructed in a form of an argumentative essay, otherwise both the contents and form are likely to suffer, but one needs to avoid becoming polemical and espousing their own favoured views outright as fact or even as the most logical explanation; while as mentioned above, at the same time, avoiding being awkwardly neutral (I never said it was easy).
[edit] Sympathetic but not empathetic
In turn, there is nothing wrong (and probably there is value in) writing an article sympathetically. People tend to write about areas that interest them, so obviously a certain degree of sympathy (in various senses) is unavoidable. At the same time, when the writer is overly empathetic with their subjects and extend to these the moral values they favour, then the article becomes unencyclopedic.
[edit] Methodical but not dogmatic
There has to be a method to the madness. An article needs to strive towards an internal consistency. Nevertheless, taking this notion too far may result in dogmatic exposition that stands to work against the usefulness of the article. Articles are written foremost for the benefit of people not familiar with its respective subject (which those familiar are, at least theoretically, not in need).
[edit] Eloquent but not rhetorical
Most topics have been written in the past in a somewhat encyclopedic form, this does not mean it is, in fact, encyclopedic. It is easy sometimes to mistake eloquence with rhetoric (and sometimes seem impossible to distinguish), and it is in this area in particular where originality of thought and writing really comes into play (and perhaps there is little value in providing further advice on this front).
[edit] Ironic but not sarcastic
Many, many years ago, my very first history professor said something to the effect of: 'history is marred with ironies and contradictions.' And it is. It is, arguably, pivotal to expose historical ironies and contradictions in relevant topics. But when these descriptions ring of the sarcastic, this then implies a projection of moral values and the risk of the article turning unencyclopedic becomes acute.
[edit] Grammar: cogent but not rigid
The English language is by no means uniform, and it is very varied. In an encyclopedia, the emphasis is usually centered against grammar becoming too loose, but with that, there is the risk of too rigid of an approach, an excess of formalization which can hinder the 'natural' flow of an article. At the same time, some technically-correct, 'philological' approaches are also flawed in that their correct interpretations are grasped by few people (at least with relative ease).
[edit] Measurements: flexible but not inconsistent
One individual, and I shall not name names (cough: Meow2, Meow2!) changed the dates in one of my articles from the British to the American method, and stated that they wished to see all articles in WP consistent as such (i.e. Americanized). This is inherently flawed. The guiding rule is for measurements to be as internally consistent as possible within a single article (not WP as a whole).
[edit] References: comprehensive but not exhaustive
I believe in a comprehensive citation of sources. This means that if I choose to write about another scholar or thinker, I will most likely provide every-single book they have ever written (but I believe that citing every journal article is going too far). With some topics, though, this becomes futile with hundreds or even thousands of works. Being exhaustive with references is an intellectual perversion and a useless self-indulgence; being comprehensive on the other hand, this is something I believe WP often desperately lacks.
[edit] Redundancy: redundant but not redundant
Everything that I have said here, is everything that I said here, but not everything that I have yet to say here, though, everything that I have said here, is everything that I said here, but not everything that I have yet to say here, here.
[edit] Discourteous editors avoided, but not at all cost
I will tend to avoid a direct discussion with those editors who have proven themselves to be consistently and unprofessionally unpleasant to others. Personal arguments have no place in intellectual discourse. But this by no means signals an easy victory for them on items in dispute, I may still address their thoughts, I simply will not address them directly by name.
[edit] Racialism and parochialism challenged mercilessly
Simply put, for those editors exhibiting a racialist or otherwise parochial (sexist, ethnocentrist, ultranationalist, etc.) agenda or demeanor, their insidious influence will be resisted to the fullest extent of my power.
[edit] My cat is better than your cat, sorry!
Tis just a figure of speech, I'm not really sorry, sorry! (really)
And so ends the rambling guide. If you have actually read the whole thing, you have my sympathies (and my cat's, let us not forget about him or we risk a terrible cataclysm).
[edit] WP References: I never said they were good!
- Lih, Andrew. Wikipedia as Participatory Journalism: Reliable Sources? Metrics for evaluating collaborative media (University of Texas, 2004).
- Subramani, Mani. Quantity and quality: understanding contribution of knowledge to public document repositories (University of Minnesota, 2004).
- Hill, Benjamin M. Collaborative Literary Creation and Control A Socio-Historic, Technological and Legal Analysis (Hampshire College, 2003).
- Boesgaard, Christian. Unlinkability and Redundancy in Anonymous Publication Systems (University of Copenhagen, 2004).
- Herrera, Laura. Participatory Journalism: The Essence of Wikipedia (University of Texas, 2004).
- Spaeth, Sebastian. Decision-Making in Open Source Projects (University of St. Gallen, 2003).
- Rittenbruch, Markus. Making sense of “Syndicated Collaboration” (University of Queensland, 2004).
- Sandvig, Christian. The Structural Problems of the Internet for Cultural Policy (University of Illinois, 2003).
Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita
Mi retroval per una selva obcura,
Che la diritta via erra smarrita
Luce intellectual, piena d'amore,
Amor di vero ben, pien di letizia,
Letizia che trascende ogni dolzore
Cosi me circonfulse, luce viva,
E lasciommi fasciato di tal veio
Del suo fulgor, che nulla m'appriva
Vedi la bestia per cui io mi volsi
Aiutami da lei, farmoso saggio,
Ch'ella mi tremmar le vene e i polsi
E un loro, quasi dal ciel messo
Veni, sponsa de libano, contando
Grido tre, e tutti gli altri apresso
– – La Divina Commedia
