From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ESU |
92% for major edits and 85% for minor edits. – Last update: 08:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC). |
|
[edit] There is No Method To My Madness
I am either interested in nothing, or interested in everything. That sort of depends what you think. My current goal is simply this: as 'payment' for every use of a Wikipedia article, I try to clear up at least one 'citation needed' within that article (I might do more if I have the time, but it takes about five minutes for me to find a cite for 90% of these 'citation needed' flags, and I think that's a fair trade considering I usually read a page on a complete whim). Oddly, I have not contributed anything to articles on subjects that I know a fair bit about, though I wrote a decent one on Peg Bracken that got deleted by accident before posting.
[edit] Things Whut Bug Me
Currently, things that bother me:
- People confusing 'original research' and 'unattributed' (the one is not proof of the other). If you state 'Xxxxx is original research!' and I enter Xxxxx into Google and find three pages about Xxxxx on the first page, I'm likely to tell you you're a twit. I don't care if you don't want to do the citations, but take a second and see whether there's a reason to really believe it's original research, as opposed to just someone overassuming the extent of common knowledge, or believing that internal linkage was enough (on the Hidden Track page, many of the examples of hidden songs linked to the album pages, which also mentioned the hidden songs, however some editors of the page felt, without doing anything about it, that since the hidden songs were mentioned by method, linking to the albums, which often just said, 'oh, there's a hidden track', was insufficient. That's not original research, that's just requiring a better contextual citation).
- There've been a LOT of people of late wandering around who never seem to contribute anything to the site except to walk around with a big yellow marker adding 'citation needed' (and frequently in places where its completely unneeded). I wouldn't mind it so much if, I didn't spend piles of time adding cites that were available in seconds on Google to Wiki articles where people have been threatening to delete things in the :Talk pages. Deleting always weakens an article, and there's been so much of it going on on citations that would have taken less time to find than for the people threatening 'cite this or I'll start deleting!' took, that its really starting to bother me. (this taken near verbatim from Talk:Hidden_track, after someone did just that and it took me less than 15 minutes to cite half the article)
- [citation needed] is NOT the only tag available to you, and lots of them are far more helpful for those of us doing the work of getting your pesky citations. Please go and READ all the things that are available to you at WP:TD#For_inline_article_placement the next time you decide you want to just scribble all over something. Telling me you think something is [original research?] will give me a lot more to work with. You have no idea.
