User talk:Mugaliens
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Legal Disclaimer
If anyone chooses to deface this page or the talk page, I, the author and legal party responsible as per Wikipedia rules and regulations, hereby retain the right to ensure that the ensuing content adheres fully to Wikipedia standards. Any posts not adhereing to Wikipedia standards will be swiftly deleted, without question, IAW Wiki standards. Negative comments not conducive to the intent behind my User Page and Talk Page will be archived.
Archived Material: User talk:Mugaliens/Archive_1
|
boxbloc
|
[edit] Archives
I combined my archives and added outdated content that was on this page to them. Mugaliens 13:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AMA Request
Hello Mugaliens,
I've accepted your case. I'm looking over the editing history of the associated articles, and should be able to get back to you with some recommendations tomorrow or the day after. In the meantime, please set up an email account and I will be able to talk with you privately. Best,--Amerique dialectics 01:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'll look into how to do that. I may ask for help, shortly. Mugaliens 20:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I've confirmed my e-mail address with Wikipedia and enabled Wiki to share it with others. I'll turn that feature off when I hear from you. If for some you reason you can't read it, please let me know and I'll figure out another way. - Mugs 21:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Overuse of Citation Needed stickers
I've noticed a prolific overuse of "citation needed" remarks akin to marking "on a normal sunny day, the sky is blue" or "regular coffee without cream or sugar appears black" as "citation needed." Most the points where some prolific citationist has posted these remarks are well-known, well-established, and well-documented facts, understood by nearly all adults. They're not fanciful claims, or uncharted personal opinions, and since I've made only one correction to this article, which has not be "citation needed," I feel free to contradict the over-prolific use of whoever has posted them here. Recommendation: Before you slap a "citation needed," please take the 60 seconds to Google the information on your own to ensure that it's warranted, as most "citation needed" marks are NOT warranted.
[edit] Google Hits
Google is a tremendous resource, but requires a few simple skills and key points of consideration to be effective:
1. You must have both a wide and deep range of knowledge, at least in the area in which you're searching. Otherwise, you'll be unable to separate fact from fad, or well-sounding prose from truth. One way to alleviate this probem for seaches into areas in which you're not an expert is to conduct many searches from well-known and reliable websites, such as Wikipedia, The Mayo Clinic, etc., comparing content and the validity of it's source, to ferret out the good content while revealing the bad.
2. Don't limit your searches to a single term, such as "War." Rather, narrow down your searches with several qualifiers, such as: "gulf war" and "computer war" and "Blu-82." There's a "sweet spot" in searching, however, as trying to narrow down your search too much will produce too few responses, and more often than not, they're a bit off target. Thus, it's best to limit your searches to between two and four or five terms. I think three is the sweet spot, with four being a secondary if three terms turns up too many (thousands) of Google hits.
3. Google hits are NO measure whatsoever of the accuracy or validity of any particular topic and can NOT be used as a metric for validating or devaluing any topic or content. Those who state, "that's not relevant - only 22,000 Google hits" haven't the slightest clue as to what Google is, how it's to be used, and what it represents. Furthermore, those who make such claims merely underscore the fact that they really don't understand much, that they jump to conclusions, seem to find "trends" in a small number of facts, and are generally incapable of looking at anything objectively, without introducing a large amount of distorting personal prejudice. The only thing Google hits measure is the number of websites out there which mention your search terms, and to a lesser extent, the general public interest in your topic. For example, there are 39.9 Million Google hits for UFO, yet the world has yet to see any credible evidence. Meanwhile, the term "scanning tunneling electron microscope," an instrument which can reveal individual atoms in three dimensional images, is in wide use today in many areas of advanced research, and mentioned in hundreds of magazines, periodicals, and newspapers over the last 20 years. Yet it yields just 544 Google hits, more than 73,000 times less than the number of Google hits for "UFO." Rain, on the other hand, yield 171 Million Google hits, but who cares? It's condensed water vapor that's falling out of the sky. Whoopee.
In conclusion, use Google to find out information - but that will only happen if you use it well. Don't use Google to measure the validity of a Wiki article or subsection. That's simply a totally ignorant misapplication of the nature of Google.
[edit] Rogue Admins
Yes, they do exist, and I've been in their sights more than once.
Definition: An admin who, for whatever reason, is unable or unwilling to discern the difference between valid and invalid content, or who unnecessarily picks on or attacks any user. Possible resons include gross personal prejudice; the desire to "make the world right" rather than accepting it the way it is; an evil intent to inflict as much discomfort/pain on users that, for whatever reason, they don't like; a history of pure contentiousness.
There are five ways of dealing with rogue admins:
1. Ignore them. Unfortunately, this approach quite often results in them deleting your valid content. If this is acceptable to you, then it's by far the easiest way to deal with them, simply offerring them no resistance. They'll soon tire of punching thin air and seek out more satisfying ways of bullying others.
2. Contact them. At the very least, this will ferret out the true rogues from honorable admins who simply come across as roguish. Even if the admin is a true rogue, if they get enough complaints directly from others, they may begin to rethink their approach. Regardless, it's a required first step on most BBS and forums, including Wiki.
3. Contact another, trusted, admin or two, asking them, "I'm curious - am I way off target, here, or am I doing the right thing?" Most admins will tell you like it is, without regard as to whether or not you're the admin or the user. If you can get two or three second opinions like this, all the better. You might not be able to use their feedback directly with the rogue admin, but you can use their feedback for the following two steps:
4. Request for Mediation. There are quite a few mediators out there who will work hard to help two parties, including those between an admin and a user, resolve disputes.
5. Request for Arbitration. This is a requisite step in resolving disputes at Wikipedia, and invites everyone associated with the disputed content to make comments, cite their own and other's previous posts. It's usually visited by admins who have no inherent interest in the material, so they're capable of taking an objective look at the issue and render fairly accurate recommendations.
What not to do:
1. Blast them on either their talk page, your talk page, or on the talk page of the article in dispute. A far better approach is to objectively and rationally discuss the information using the approach mentioned above.
2. Take them to task. They're an admin, while you're not. They win. It's far better to contact them, respectfully, request mediation, and request arbitration.
3. Bad mouth them behind their back. That's a Wiki-no-non, and Admins have the ability to monitor everything a particular user posts. If they're on your case, they'll see it.
4. Engage in a revert war. This is merely stooping to their level. Take the high ground and follow the steps outlined above.
The good news is that if you take the higher ground, the rest of the Wiki community will soon come to see them for who they are, and you'll gain the community's respect while the rogue admin will gain their ire. If you stoop to the rogue admin's level, however, you'll both gain the community's ire.
Good luck!
- Mugs 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
