From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Wikipedia
 |
This user has been on Wikipedia for
2 years, 8 months and 20 days. |
|
|
Interests
|
| cvg-5 |
This user is a professional gamer. |
|
|
Programming
|
| cpp-2 |
This user is an intermediate C++ programmer. |
| php |
This user can program in PHP. |
|
|
Misc
|
|
|
|
Languages
|
| BS-5 |
This user is able to contribute with a professional level of Bullshit. |
| 1337-2 |
7h15 u53r 15 48l3 70 (0n7r18u+3
\/\/i7h 4|\| |1|\|73rm3d14+3 l3\/3l 0f 1337. |
|
[edit] Administrators ignoring consensus
Administrators on Wikipedia seem to have a hard time grasping their role in the project. Jokingly referred to as being "given the mop", most seem to believe (through actions, and sometimes even words) their role is that of a judge, jury and executioner. This isn't the case. Administrators perform their duties at the leisure of the community, the project, and ultimately the foundation. Too often lately community backed initiatives are ignored or dismissed out of hand because administrators disagree with the consensus view. This is entirely inappropriate, and administrators who act like this should have their sysop status removed.
- I have no problem with administrators making simple judgments, especially when they're willing to reverse their decision if the community later decides differently. It's the administrators that are unwilling to acknowledge their view is the minority view that I take issue with.
[edit] "Invaluable editors"
Some Wikipedians subscribe to the assumption that "valuable editors" should be given more leeway in violating policy than other (normal) editors. This is simply false. Following this logic will only lead Wikipedia into a class hierarchy where some editors are able to violate policies and rules (no personal attacks, edit wars, etc) and others are not. We should strive for equality with our peers, not a class system as this assumption inspires.
- It's one thing to take a situation in context and act appropriately, it's another to set aside an issue entirely because of the supposed good the editor does.
[edit] Creating work for others
I strongly dislike editors who enjoy creating work for other editors. Work that they could do themselves, but instead of that, are forcing editors who edited in good faith to take additional time consuming action to keep their contributions from being deleted. I urge all Wikipedians to consider whether they are helping the encyclopedia when they create work for someone else. If you find yourself in such a situation, ask yourself if you can't resolve the problem and be done with it, allowing good faith editors to continue on uninterrupted.
- As an aside, I have no problem with people leaving messages suggesting improvements I can make in my future contributions if I've made a mistake or an oversight. But simply creating work for me when you can do it yourself isn't how we should run things.
[edit] Image ownership
It has been suggested that by uploading an image the person doing the uploading is permanently responsible for ensuring that not only does the image meet all current policies and guidelines, but that it meets all future policies and guidelines. First of all, this is a reverse violation of the ownership of articles policy. Second of all, it's unrealistic for people to hold an editor accountable for an image they uploaded months or years ago. Editors leave the project, and information that may be necessary in the future may not have been archived. Further, an image may be used by any editor once uploaded: the uploader has no idea what the rationale for the use of an image on another page might be. People with attitudes like this need to be given {{sofixit}}s on their talk page until they get the idea through their head that this is a wiki.
[edit] Other Wiki Accounts
[edit] Projects
[edit] Languages
