Wikipedia:Just write a damn encyclopedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline, it simply reflects some opinions of its authors. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page.

Feel free to post support essays or rebuttals under a separate subheading.

All too often, I see the attempts and successes of article-writing being trampled by the miles of red tape that our administrators and elitist users set up for others. If they say Wikipedia isn't an experiment in democracy, why do they seem more interested in writing bylaws than articles? Why do they constantly delete first, ask questions later? Why do we, the common editor, let these elitists throw their supposed "power" around? Why don't we all just get together, take back Wikipedia, and just write a damn encyclopedia, already?

I'm Kookykman. An editor who resigned to editing as an IP to avoid the red tape. Now I'm back, and I'm done running away. It's time to take a stand.

[edit] If you lack vision, you are blind

What you seem to be proposing is to take a stand against everyone. Because...

It doesn't take an elistist to be a deletist. Anyone can nominate any article for deletion. The problem has more to do with systemic bias than it has to do with some special or differentiated group lording their power over the rest of us. Great power, in terms of the program functions and community privileges granted to every user of Wikipedia is substantial, and includes editing (adding to or removing material from pages), creating pages, renaming pages, redirecting, merging, making nominations (deletion, adminship, etc.), presenting proposals, forming departments, writing guidelines and new policies, and more.

But, if you take advantage of the additional tools provided on and off of Wikipedia (programs, macros, applets, scripts, bots, toolbars, tips, etc.), which are available to almost everyone, then you can amplify your power on Wikipedia by at least a magnitude.

So there is no such thing as a "common editor". We are all elitists in terms of the tools and opportunities available to us.

And Wikipedia isn't an experiment in democracy, nor is it a democracy. It is in fact a sociocracy incubated within the jurisdiction of a benign dictatorship which itself is incubated within the bounds of a representative democracy (a form of republic). Wikipedia simply would not exist if it were not for the latter two umbrellas of protection (Jimbo Wales and the United States of America). Be thankful for this wonderful creation that they have made possible.

We passed the million-articles milestone early this year, and we are rapidly approaching the 1.5 million articles milestone already. So the red tape and deletions of which you speak don't seem to be hampering Wikipedia's development much at all. Wikipedia is growing faster than ever before.

It seems like everyone is already taking a stand, and are in fact building an encyclopedia!

--The Transhumanist 09:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also

• Beware of instruction creep
• Practical process - procedures are good, to a point.
• WP:IAR -- Fundamental basis of this essay.
• WP:ENC -- the "red tape" will only get in your way if you disregard this. An encyclopedia is inherently "elitist": Wikipedia welcomes mediocrity, with the understanding that it is provisional, but will discard it anytime in favour of quality.