User:Lmbstl

[edit] Washington University in St. Louis WikiProject

[edit] Templates

One thing I enjoy is improving templates. Templates make life so much easier.

I have created the following templates:

• {{WUSTL}}
• {{UserWUSTLproject}}
• {{ProjectWUSTL}}
• {{WikiProjectWUSTLpeople}}
• {{WikiProjectWUSTLinvite}}
• {{Shortcut|[[WP:WUSTL]]}}
• {{NWHawaiianIslands}}

I have worked on:

• {{Elections}}
• {{Forms of government}}
• {{Ideologies}}
• {{Illinois}}
• {{Politics}}
• {{PoliticalCampaigns}}
• {{Political parties}}

I am currently working on:

{{IRtheories}}

(it's a work in progress)

[edit] Wikipedia weaknesses we should observe and eradicate

"Larry Sanger proposes a fine distinction between knowledge that is useful and knowledge that is reliable, and there is no question that Wikipedia beats every other source when it comes to breadth, efficiency, and accessibility. Yet the site’s virtues are also liabilities. Cauz scoffed at the notion of “good enough knowledge.” “I hate that,” he said, pointing out that there is no way to know which facts in an entry to trust. Or, as Robert McHenry, a veteran editor at Britannica, put it, “We can get the wrong answer to a question quicker than our fathers and mothers could find a pencil.”
Part of the problem is provenance. The bulk of Wikipedia’s content originates not in the stacks but on the Web, which offers up everything from breaking news, spin, and gossip to proof that the moon landings never took place. Glaring errors jostle quiet omissions. Wales, in his public speeches, cites the Google test: “If it isn’t on Google, it doesn’t exist.” This position poses another difficulty: on Wikipedia, the present takes precedent over the past. The (generally good) entry on St. Augustine is shorter than the one on Britney Spears. The article on Nietzsche has been modified incessantly, yielding five archived talk pages. But the debate is largely over Nietzsche’s politics; taken as a whole, the entry is inferior to the essay in the current Britannica, a model of its form. (From Wikipedia: “Nietzsche also owned a copy of Philipp Mainländer’s ‘Die Philosophie der Erlösung,’ a work which, like Schopenhauer’s philosophy, expressed pessimism.”)
Wikipedia remains a lumpy work in progress. The entries can read as though they had been written by a seventh grader: clarity and concision are lacking; the facts may be sturdy, but the connective tissue is either anemic or absent; and citation is hit or miss. Wattenberg and Viégas, of I.B.M., note that the vast majority of Wikipedia edits consist of deletions and additions rather than of attempts to reorder paragraphs or to shape an entry as a whole, and they believe that Wikipedia’s twenty-five-line editing window deserves some of the blame. It is difficult to craft an article in its entirety when reading it piecemeal, and, given Wikipedians’ obsession with racking up edits, simple fixes often take priority over more complex edits. Wattenberg and Viégas have also identified a “first-mover advantage”: the initial contributor to an article often sets the tone, and that person is rarely a Macaulay or a Johnson. The over-all effect is jittery, the textual equivalent of a film shot with a handheld camera."

—Stacy Schiff, "Know It All" The New Yorker^[1]

[edit] Notes and references

1. ^ http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/31/060731fa_fact?printable=true