User:Deckiller/Philosophy

This is my WikiPhilosophy from July 2005 to April 2006—it has changed significantly, and I need to update it. The only real reason you should read it is to see what I used to be like...

Requests for Adminship philosophy

Administrators are both editors and janitors; they are armed with both the keyboard and the mop

Like featured article candidates, RfA is one of the most rapidly changing areas on Wikipedia. RfA is turning into a trial; some users oppose a candidate based on his/her wrting style! This displays a severe immaturity in the system — maturity means balance, which means looking at everything and being realistic.

Administrators should act professionally and have a lust for tedious duties. There are backlogs in many categories — I try to clear them out occasionally, but it requires a team effort. A professional user needs decent writing skills and a solid editing history, but I don't expect everyone to meet ridiculous standards. Pointlessly high or trivial benchmarks will only waste the candidate's time as he or she tries to tailor their account to meet them, thus causing thar person to forget an administrator's true responsibilities. Admin prospects should get involved with the Wikipedia community and act professionally — greeting new users and adding templates will display how well one can handle repetitive tasks.

An administrator is like a retail associate; Admins must recover the floor and fix the aisles (deletions and so on), deal with customers (other users, newcomers, and vandals), get illogically stuck between a rock and a hardplace (like BorgHunter back in February), and receive lousy pay (in this case: nothing).

I look for at least three months of consistent, yet increasing activity; RfA candidates shouldn't be in their twilight as Wikipedians. What's the point of having burned out admins? Moreover, well-diversified edits are necessary to obtain a good example of the candidate's role as an editor and Wikipedian. Questions should be well answered, because this could be my first glance into the candidate. I also look for high edit summary usage, which shows whether users will explain their administrative actions. Finally, I'm a realist who doesn't oppose based on Wikipedia space or portal talk edits — I look for enough proof that the user will fit the mold of a Wikipedian administrator. Also, admins don't need to be on the project 24/7; they just have to display that they fit the basic "criteria" so that when they do use the tools, they are fine and dandy.

WikiPhilosophy

Wikipedia is one of the greatest collaborations in history, but this is unrealized by those who criticize Wikipedia's content without taking the time to correct or improve it. Others seem to give up on the project, not realizing that a few simple tweaks can fix many of Wikipedia's minor problems (or perhaps they leave because we're too stubborn to implement them?). Yet others leave because they are in the minority — well, consensus is the only way to determine if something is right; if the majority of the people reading can trust the information, then we've done our job. I do agree in some boldness, as long as it is done correctly by a well-established editor.

The concept of the Wiki needs to be spread like wildfire. More people means more diversification, especially among very obscure, poorly covered topics. An expanded core group ensures that more articles are one hundred percent NPOV and verifiable. Editors who are truly passionate about a subject will ensure that it is comprehensive and correct — especially on the 13th highest ranked website. Any other user is only partially interested in the concept, and therefore not a member of the core group.

In general

Although this is an open and unique encyclopedia, users must follow the rules. Articles must be well-referenced, and written from a neutral point of view by balancing criticism, removing flowery prose, adding necessary citations and references, and upholding notability guidelines. A well-referenced article has a grand shield against false information; if a new user adds an unsourced claim into a cited article, it will stick out like a sore thumb. In an unsourced article, however, any false material or original research is camouflaged.

Administrators are still editors. Define your role based on your positions and editing style

To maintain peace, balance, and order in this community, one must develop a role (or several) and stick to it — like an online RPG. Administrators should not be involved in much mediation; that's what mediators are for. Administrators are not diplomats; they are policemen, janitors, and community leaders. Mediators mediate; they don't clean spills (unless they balance positions). B-crats are administrators with added responsibilities, expectations, and opportunities. And yes, vandals vandalize the site (self explanatory). On one hand, if vandals are treated fairly, they may return and work for the project. On the other hand, if well-established users get their ego(s) bruised, they will feed their revenge by vandalizing Wikipedia.

Additionally, users must be civil; no overblown edit wars and attacks are necessary, because they are just fluffy, pointless attempts at gaining a foothold in an arguement. Experienced users can see through edit wars and nonsense attacks like glass.

The more popular a topic is and the more dedicated its fans are, the more fancruft is smeared on the mainspace. In other words, topics like Final Fantasy, Xenosaga, and Star Wars require more trimming, prose enhancement, and rollbacks than Moby Dick. People who don't read what Wikipedia is not will get decimated. New users must be wary about the rules — with so much (perceived) freedom, it's very easy to think "I can do anything".

Administrators should be good editors — they clean up the encyclopedia, which requires tedious work and requires extensive knowledge of its structure. Like janitors or retail associates, admins must understand the policies, procedures, and overall structure of the workplace. Plus, I think administrators must stay true to the encyclopedia by continuing to edit articles. With such a combination of elements necessary, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why people — especially newcomers — look up to admins. Even if this is not a defined role, administrators must take full advantage of this by setting an good example with crisp, knowledgeable, and professional behavior — especially concerning new users. This molds newcomers into excellent editors and community leaders — a must for encyclopedic integrity. People learn by example, and duty holders are automatically assumed (and, through RfA and RfB, proven) to be experienced guides. It doesn't matter how it was originally intended to be; I conform my Adminship and editing style based on the consensus of Wikipedia. And right now, the consensus (or my interpretation thereof) is that admins are [everything listed above] (based on RfA and experience factors), and I shall comply.

However, I don't expect administrators to be elitists who claim to "own" the site. Like the well-versed, hardened senior class of high school, admins participate in community service and setting an example for the newcomers. Admins are also comparable to vice principles — both occupations deal with policing and consensus. B-crats are a step above administrators in that they must go through another community discussion, which demands an increased experience with Wikipedia.

These two roles merely reflect and prove experience and professionalism — there are plenty of so-called "regular editors" who display both traits. As aforementioned, many users believe that admins or B-crats are the cream of the crop (which, again as aforementioned, should be exploited and not immediately corrected). In RfA/RfB, how many times have you seen editors exclaim, "I thought that user was an admin/b-crat!". I rest my case.

Vandals do not understand the potential of this project. Either that, or their writing is so poor that they are afraid to contribute productively to this project. I don't respect people who vandalize this site. Sure, people can repent; I believe in treating vandals fairly and based on the situation — without a hint of "happy-go-luckyness" or rude comments such as "leave immediately". I'm a fair person, but logic dictates that there shouldn't be a chance for a vandal to disrupt this collaboration five times before a block. Vandals on Wikipedia fall into the same category as bullies, robbers, and criminals; they cause trouble for practically infinite reasons.

WikiProjects unite users for organizational and collaboration purposes. If the project is largescale, subdivisions may be required, allowing people to focus on certain strengths in a particular field. Of course, the main project page/talk page/whatever remains there as the joining place. It's a complex system; many factors go into it.

Personal

Vandals and Wikipedians see things differently

I am a mergist. I believe that fictional characters, excluding main antagonists and protagonists, should be placed in lists with footnotes and external link subsections. This is a general interest encyclopedia, not Final Fantasy wiki or Wookieepedia. I've made over 50 "lists" or collections of mini articles, and I don't plan on stopping soon. I find this "list" system to be an excellent way to contain cruft and provide a positive future for the information they contain. Setting back a future push for professional style and coverage by deleting the list is not something that will help the encyclopedia in the long run — keeping it around for the potential to turn it into an encyclopedic entry is key to maintaining the integrity of the project.

I am usually fair with what I merge; if an article has a lot of substantial subsections, 4+ references, and little cruft, I'll leave it be. However, my ultimate dream is to see an encyclopedia-wide completion of a three step process: merge miniarticles into lists, strengthen the content by trimming trivia and adding references, and rewrite the lists into comprehensive articles. See Spira (Final Fantasy X) and Final Fantasy magic for two good examples.

"Daughter articles" should only be used in necessary situations where they won't stand the chance of becoming bloated with minor details about a plot or event. For example, a page describing a detailed world or the history of a fictional universe does not (usually) need a section devoted to its insect life, nor does an RPG article merit a subarticle devoted to its battle system. However, detailed battle systems and subarticles covering an entire series are often needed.

Despite my overusage of the term in this soapbox, I'm not a major fan of the term 'cruft'. Nevertheless, the concept still applies; Wikipedia is full of excess (and redundant) fictional information that needs to be tightened, compressed, reworded, and referenced while remaining comprehensive. As I mentioned above, Cruft Dams (those "lists" of miniarticles) serve as vital midpoints between poor articles and excellent works.

I edit in small blocks, or "passes" — clearly a very awkward style. Despite the sour aftertaste, the use of multiple edits and edit summaries provides a multistep guide, or chronicle, of the article's evolution. It also prevents the possibility of a major edit conflict, which is common when two people are making huge edits simultaneously. I tend to rush a few edits here and there; users need to make a habit of using the "preview" button, because I still need to.

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, so please treat it as such. New Wikipedians must remember that older editors may have some important things to say. Newcomers must learn that this isn't a GameFAQs message board, a fansite, or a gaming library. In conclusion, remember to describe this universe and follow all policies, even the often conflicted image rules.

Civility

Jesus Christ's civility allowed him to influence the masses. Although such influence is bad on Wikipedia, please remember to remain civil.

I'm starting to realize that the best way to improve Wikipedia is to steamroll over certain factions that do not OBVIOUSLY adhere to policy by using frank, but hopefully not uncivil, comments. I may never become a B-crat for this, but that's good, because I've decided to start on a course that will lead to encyclopedia improvement, and not political balancing. You may find this hypocritical to what I said above, but like I said, the points above may be outdated. I've come to realize that the best way to improve quality on the encyclopedia is to rapidly deal with trolls and steamroll over those who are obviously in the wrong (such as introducing OR, etc). Also, five warnings for vandals is excessive for obvious reasons. However, let me clarify that steamrolling trolls and policy haters does not equal biting the newcomers, unless those newcomers are not receptive to understanding policy.