User:Hildanknight/Crisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The conflict on 13 August 2006 is the last straw on the camel's back. I am anticipating copious hate mail from other Wikipedians, and I declare my Wikilife in a state of crisis. After all, allowing anonymous users (such as 69.145.123.171) to edit is a foundation issue (and a foundation problem) which everyone supports (except me).

Many veteran Wikipedians have left the project. When they reveal their reasons for leaving, have you seriously considered their reasons? I regularly read allegations of administrator abuse, and although I have not personally witnessed it, I notice several veteran Wikipedians have left over it. While I am in no position to take a stance, I don't see how Wikipedia has responded to the allegations, and I believe they could do a lot to clear things up. Similarly, when Larry Sanger left Wikipedia due to the lack of respect for expertise, did you listen to him? If I complain, or leave, because of the problems anonymous editors have caused me, will you actually deal with the problems (which will affect other Wikipedians)?

Some Wikipedians have their usernames immortalized in Wikipedia. For example, Willy on Wheels for vandalism, and RickK for fighting vandalism. I hate to think that this may happen to me, for opposition to anonymous editing. Perhaps if I leave for two months, then come back to check the village pump, I may see someone who has experienced the same issues as I have, and therefore vehemently opposed anonymous editing. And others will reply "Oh, this troll just did a Hildanknight" and he will get flamed.

If you wish to send me hate mail, there's nothing I can do to stop you. I know most Wikipedians strongly support anonymous editing as a foundation issue, and 69.145.123.171 is therefore very popular on Wikipedia - which makes me a troll and villian. Therefore, my contributions as a registered Wikipedian (two articles: Google Groups and Homerun (film), and a process: Requests for feedback) are neither appreciated nor welcomed. I don't expect to get paid for it, but I hope to get the following out of my contributions to Wikipedia:

  • The joy of writing. Only a true writer at heart will understand what I really mean by this. I was born a true writer at heart, always have been, and always will be. I love writing, and I've always excelled in it. In school, I usually am first in class for English, and earlier this year I even topped my school. When I see an essay I write getting a high mark, or representing my school at a national competition, I rejoice internally. The same applies for Wikipedia. I enjoy writing articles - thinking about how to present and structure information, and what should go in and what should be left out. I enjoy improving the articles I write, and the articles others write too. I want to see a stamp of approval on my work - usually the Good Article stamp, together with recognition by others. I joined to further improve my already-stellar writing skills, and to continue enjoying what I've always done.
  • Wikifriends with similar interests. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia project. And when checking the edit history of articles on topics of interest, I am likely to find like-minded Wikipedians from all over the world. I hope to discuss with them about our common interests and befriend them. I think friendship's becoming devalued, and I've always treasured my true friends. I believe true friendships can be developed online, and I've been a feverent user of online communities. I believe that many hands make light work, and collaborating with like-minded Wikifriends to improve articles is much easier, faster and more fun than working alone.

Unfortunately, things did not work out as expected. Problem after problem surfaced. In fact, I was already facing considerable problems before the conflict on 13 August 2006, and that is why the I consider the conflict "the last straw on the camel's back", and why I now declare my Wikilife in a state of crisis.

I previously (on 5 July 2006) considered leaving Wikipedia due to the overwhelming problems. On 25 July 2006 I decided to stay after I received lots of encouraging words from several Wikipedians, most notably Richardshusr, who convinced me that I had done some great work for Wikipedia, and should continue to do more great work. There is nothing wrong with leaving encouraging words, and I appreciate all the encouraging words I have received. However, encouraging words are insufficient, and they won't solve the problems. The problems still persist after the encouraging words are given.

When I repeatedly seek help for the problems I am facing, I get encouraging words, but the problems are not dealt with. These problems continue to affect me, and I can only grit my teeth and hope for the best:

  • Being the collateral damage of blocks to 202.156.6.54 This IP is shared by most Singaporeans, and obviously there are many vandals using this IP. This IP is frequently blocked and in the past, I was unable to edit a quarter of the time. These blocks have cost me hours' worth of edits and considerable stress. My constant requests for help were ignored. Once I couldn't take it any more, I blew up.[1][2] NSLE blocked me indefinitely for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. The block was later lifted.[3] Since the recent changes to the blocking policy have been implemented, the situation has improved and is no longer unbearable, but I am still autoblocked occasionally.
  • Anonymous vandals constantly attack pages I am interested in, such as Neopets, RuneScape and List of social networking sites. Although I am not a vandal-fighter (I find writing more productive), I often find myself reverting anonymous vandalism; this wastes my time and drains the energy I need to write. Such anonymous vandalism (some of which is subtle, such as changing facts) often degrades the quality of the articles and puts a strain on registered users. Admins are afraid to semi-protect the article, as they want the anonymous vandals to overrun the article. How can I improve the articles to Good Article status when the anonymous vandals are ruining them? Thankfully, RuneScape has been semi-protected for several weeks, and I hope it stays semi-protected.
  • My failure as a Wikipedian My goal on Wikipedia is to collaborate with others to improve articles, and to make Wikifriends with those I collaborate with (who are likely to share my interest in the article topic). That was what Richardshusr meant when saying I had done some "great work" here: the two articles I wrote as a then-new editor - Google Groups and Homerun (film) - are close to Good Article standards (according to Richard), and Requests for feedback is growing and could possibly develop into an established Wikipedia process.
I want to do more great work, but I'm having difficulty doing so. When I post on talk pages of an article and it's relevant WikiProject, seeking Wikipedians to collaborate with on the article, I get ignored (I wait over a week). For example, I wanted to clean up the AdventureQuest article and add screenshots, and needed some guidance. I posted on the talk page of the relevant WikiProject and AdventureQuest's talk page - no response. When seeking Wikipedians who are familiar with policy and friendly to newcomers, to help respond to Requests for feedback - I posted on the help desk, the talk page of the New contributors' help page and the Welcoming committee's talk page. I only received a response at Esperanza's talk page. I posted on the SGpedians' notice board seeking Wikipedians to collaborate with me on the Jack Neo movies series of articles, but what reply do I get? Zero. I've placed a to-do list on my userpage, hoping those interested in collaborating will help me. Some have even told me "do it yourself". But isn't it more fun to collaborate, and having others who will help you with your weaknesses, and to potentially make Wikifriends with those you collaborate with? Isn't Wikipedia a collaborative encyclopedia? How do you expect me to contribute under such circumstances?
  • The Verifiability policy Please place a note at the top of the policy page stating "This policy was created with the intent of making Hildanknight's Wikilife extremely difficult." This policy makes it very difficult for me to contribute, given the topics I write on - websites, TV shows, movies - require original research and firsthand experience/expertise to write well. I remember Jimbo saying something about "no information is better than speculative information" (wait, do I need to find a reference for that?). I guess I can be "kicked out from the project for being a lousy writer". Let's not forget that I can't format a reference to save my life. I'm not saying that the policy is bad, just that it makes things difficult for me, and causes the following problems for Wikipedia:
It bites the newcomers. Most newcomers do not add references when they add information. Proponents of the Verifiability policy will bite them upon discovering their unsourced statements. Formatting policies is also difficult for newcomers.
It bites the experts. Forcing them to add references for their contributions is insulting their intelligence. True experts write from their own knowledge, and don't need to refer to external sources. For example, a chess grandmaster does not think about doubled pawns or open files. He is thoroughly familiar with such concepts, and makes moves on instinct. Trust the experts, as long as they prove they are experts. Many experts in their fields are also newcomers to Wikipedia.
It is anti-wiki. Wikipedia is an open, free encyclopedia. The policy restricts the freedom that Wikipedia is, and results in useful, accurate information that is difficult to source being removed.
It creates systematic bias. When the views of the experts and the common people differ, the experts' views are usually given undue weight. This is because it is difficult to reference the opinions of the common people, and because adding their views requires weasel-wording. For example, if the professional reviews love a certain aspect of the computer game, but most players hate that particular aspect of the computer game, the article will give a positive impression of that aspect of the game.

I am not ready to leave Wikipedia yet. I believe this is a great website, and I really wish to keep contributing to it. However, these issues must be dealt with if I am to continue contributing, and I must determine the best way to deal with them. I will not leave unless I determine it the best way to deal with these issues (i.e. consider the situation completely hopeless). If you don't want to leave, please help solve the problems (in some cases, "help me deal with" is a better phrase).

My experience on Wikipedia had its ups and downs, and I do not completely regret joining this project. I wish to thank several editors who have positively contributed to my experience here (this is intended to sound like a goodbye message in case I decide to leave):

  • Commander Keane - Thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia and showing me the ropes, and for being patient with me when I made mistakes. I hope you continue welcoming newcomers and making their days.
  • Tangotango - Thanks for your extensive support with setting up and running Requests for feedback. I hope you are instrumental in developing RFF into an established Wikipedia process.
  • Terence Ong - Thanks for being an understanding friend and constantly helping me with miscellaneous issues despite facing considerable stress yourself. I hope you pass your next Request for Adminship.
  • Tdxiang - Thanks for all the guidance and assistance on MSN and on Wikipedia. I hope you develop into Singapore's prodigy Wikipedian - what I've always wanted to be.
  • Richardshusr - Thanks for understanding my stress and tirelessly offering me the support, encouragement and guidance I need. I hope you continue to be a model of Esperanza and that you will help Esperanza and Wikipedia grow.
  • Imoeng - Thanks for just being a good friend, and for your support and contributions to Requests for feedback. I hope that you rapidly rise among Wikipedia's ranks and become a catalyst for RFF.
  • Cowman109 - Thanks for being fair in handling the situation - in blocking the IP and semi-protecting my talk page, and then lifting the protection and explaining it to me.

I, J.L.W.S. The Special One, certify that all text above was written by me, and no one else. I also certify that I have spent 5 hours spanning 2 days writing this, and that the above text meets my general high standards as a writer. I certify the above text to be true and accurate to the best of my ability and knowledge.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)