User:Master Jay

“

Beggars can't be choosers.

”

Users with an agenda

Submitted 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Most wheel wars start on Wikipedia because there a few users with an agenda. They have made their edits, and are not willing to compromise or even be considerate of another's viewpoint. NPOV aside, this can include technicalities like page redirects, categories, or even article structure - not the kind of stuff you would think arguments could erupt from.
• I won't name names or give any examples, but all I have to say is this - talk it out, and good things will come. Cite guidelines to reinforce your stance, not defend it (which would mean rebutting with another guideline or policy). And most importantly, admit your mistakes. There is no better way to waste time than to argue like an airhead over a comma splice.

Benoit family tragedy/Wikipedia article controversy

Submitted 03:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Once again Wikipedia has made it into the headlines. The story this time is that before the death of wrestler Chris Benoit & family was discovered by police, an anonymous user had posted Benoit's wife had died, hours before the bodies were even found. The inexplicable edit was discovered by another user, probably searching through diffs, and eventually made its way into the IRC backrooms, the noticeboard, Wikinews made an article about it, and then it made the world headlines (as a side note, Fox News did an "exclusive" story on it, without citing Wikinews as the source).
• There are two components to this story. Firstly, the leak itself, which is now a matter of a police investigation, and second off, the discovery of this edit by the community, which is well documented at the talk page here. There is also a good deal of stuff, including a sharp rebuttal by Bawolff to some irrelevant ramblings here.

• To summarize, wrestler Chris Benoit & family were found dead, believed to be a double-murder suicide. This was leaked by an anon hours before the cops even knew about it - the person behind this has now been taken into questioning by the police. News about the leak circulated around Wikipedia and Wikinews, and the story of the early death notice hit mainstream press yesterday - it is unlikely that users who made the discovery will be the subject of any investigation.

• I am sure this will go down in Wikipedia history as one of the most bizarre stories ever. What makes it even more interesting is that all the conversations and logs of the events as they happened are stored in the histories, some of which are being used in the criminal investigation. From a historical viewpoint, this is probably the first time evidence for a criminal investigation made it on to Wikipedia, prior to it being made mainstream, once again garnering widespread attention for the encyclopedia - I don't think Britannica has seen as many controversies.

• There probably have been several postings made on websites about crimes hours before they were discovered by police, meaning 21st century police work now includes searching the web for clues. And who said Wikipedia wasn't a crystal ball.

Comments are welcome

Lead names!

Submitted 00:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

• I cannot stand articles with a lead that looks like Robert "Bob" Smith. In attempting to look more sophisticated, it just looks plain stupid. I recently consulted the manual of style for guidance, but the section on biography leads is ambiguous at best. The most ridiculous one which I have seen would have to be the Joseph "Joe"... lead. We need a policy - lets use the name on the subject's birth certificate, or at least what we think the name on their birth certificate should look like. Obviously, legal name changes, etc, would be considered also. Enough of this Christopher "Chris" nonsense. Who's with me on this?

Essjay

Submitted 19:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• For starters, I don't know how many people actually read my commentary, furthermore, by now I am sure we've all had our spiel about the Essjay controversy. Here is my take on the matter.
• When I heard about what had transpired, it took me by surprise. I, like many others, believed what I had read on his userpage. It is unfortunate that the identity he created got the best of him, and in an ironic twist, ultimately led to his demise and exposure of identity. I am not defending what he did, but I can understand why he did it. I imagine that one thing led to another, and it was too late to turn back. He eventually did come out, but the damage was already done.
• I am not sure if this has happened before on Wikipedia, but certainly the fallout is something we've never seen before. Any controversy involving any prominent member of the community is sure to create a buzz, however, what is unexpected is the international press that this has attained. It is not like he was a quack neurosurgeon, who could have potentially killed someone! Nonetheless, this case has set a precedent when it comes to fabricating details about who you really are. I suspect a few others may have to come clean in light of the recent events.
• I will always remember Essjay for the great effort and time he put into Wikipedia. In my brief conversations with him, I always found him to be approachable, respectable, and overall a good fellow to deal with. He was always there to answer questions, and I appreciate the tremendous work that he put into the project.
• In my opinion, credentials are important, especially when asked upon to weigh in on an article that needs expert advice. However, the question remaining from all of this is whether or not credentials made a difference in terms of his various promotions. Would a self-admitted college dropout gain prominence and recognition in a large community? Who knows.

Enough with the tags!

Submitted 05:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• There is a growing problem with taggers – users who add large box tags to the beginning of articles, hoping that some poor soul will come along and fix it, leaving a mess in the meantime. It just doesn't work – use the talk page instead. If the article has significant flaws, whether it be missing citations, style, and so forth, initiate a discussion on the talk page, and work it out from there. Adding a large tag that takes up a third of the screen reduces article neatness, adds quite a bit to the server load (when multiplied by a few hundred thousand), and it won't get anything done. If an article requires improvement, do what you can do to fix it, then perhaps ask for assistance on the talk page – please do not continue to add a huge tag and expect the problems to go away. Its time to stop passing the buck people!
• Tags, when used accordingly, are effective in directing help to where it's needed most. All I am saying is that the specifics of what needs to be done can be placed on the talk page instead. If anything, we'd be better off placing the tags on the talk page in the first place, which would keep the article free of clutter, while still keeping it marked for improvement.
• The same thing goes for protection tags – when a user clicks "edit," the large disclaimer box in the edit window is pretty self explanatory. An eyesore of a protected tag placed at the top of an article, especially when it is popular, adds on to the problem. People aren't stupid - of course when it says (after clicking the edit button) "you are unable to edit because the page is protected..." you know you're unable to edit. An annoying tag at the top of the article really isn't necessary.
• Enough with the tags!

On Article quality etc

Submitted 15:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• When browsing through the unpopular articles, I find that some are written pretty well, and then others are written sounding like your next door neighbour is talking to you. What I'm trying to get at here is that the less popular an article is, the more likely it is going to need a {{wikify}} tag on it. I never thought that I'd have to say this, but here it goes: not every single reader knows where New Jersey is. (all apologies to anyone from New Jersey) If you're editing an article, remember that it will be read by everyone around the world, not just your friends across the street. My reference to New Jersey is to illustrate that details about a person or place should have country information; use words like United States, American, or even USA, for example. Same applies to other people or places in different countries. Why am I very concerned you might ask? Well, until recently, I had no clue where West Yorkshire was. However, I know where the United Kingdom is - if an article said that someone was from West Yorkshire, and omitted important country details, it would be confusing. Now I know this isn't the case for all articles, however, the ones that are fairly unpopular are often neglected, and lack basic details.
• Not everyone here has a degree in English. In fact, what makes Wikipedia great is that anyone with the will to edit an article is able to, and I encourage it. Nonetheless, I notice that there is a wide gap between good articles and crummy stubs in terms of prose. As I said before, I am not worried about featured articles and other ones of good quality. I am only worried about the other one million or so. I won't provide specific examples, however, in recent weeks, I have found myself repairing leads, amongst other things, to improve a handful of articles. I find that some articles are very poorly written, just in terms of flow and style. I also find that others are written by PhD students, who forget that not everyone reading the article has a degree in chemical engineering. I personally like the way How Stuff Works is written, because it gives a full picture of the subject in question, even the reader is a novice. Those of you out there that edit to achieve so-so quality should be aiming for an FA. For others, who include every last technical detail, remember that not everyone will understand it.

On Featured Articles etc

Submitted 18:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• I believe that FA's are a good thing. However, I also believe that the process in which we choose featured articles is in desperate need of an overhaul. Highly visible articles, i.e. articles that appear within the first page of a search engine query, should be our finest work. Period. An organized drive should be made to achieve the following: There are only seven continents - there should be a drive to make them featured; Every country should be a featured article; Every capital city of every country should be a featured article. On the one hand, there are well written articles that happen to be featured, and then there are articles, maybe not so well written, that need to be of featured article quality.
• The purpose of an article: Is the article on a recent news event, or a historical event. Is the article on a person, a place, or a thing? Some articles are designed to educate and inform, while others serve as a sespool for heated debate. Most of us know who George W. Bush is, so is there really a need to fight over how you define him? Besides the point, an article on a shopping mall should have directions, an article on a website should have links. What makes Wikipedia different from a paper encyclopedia is that at any time, we can go in and change it. So nothing is really set in stone.
• The purpose of a featured article: To highlight our best work. Wikipedia is no Britannica , however, it is a great success when everyday contributors can put together an informative, quality, piece of work. To turn one sentence, that has a few errors in it, to a quality article, even better than Britannica , is a good thing.
• The rush to make an article featured is problematic. Take the Microsoft article for example – it had a "wordy" lead, which was only corrected after it was featured and on the main page.
• Standards: Every living person article should have a lead that is identical. Name (birthday in place) is a(n) [country] [what they are].