User:Matt Lewis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
My main issues with Wikipedia:
- IPs and socking - it's got to be better worked out. Should they be part of a 3RR decision?
- Transparency and the use of emails: Ever since an admin admitted that some had changed hands over an issue I've felt markedly less secure.
- Headcounting at AfD's. Being able to get rid of Coatrack 'fork' articles is essential for the development of Wikipedia. It is almost impossible to do this at times due to the interested parties dominating the POV-based fork.
- Casino-style 'edit counts' - people need to be encouraged to slow down! I'm convinced Wikipedia would improve twice as fast if people edited less.
- More and better administrators: I think there should also be more admin, and better advice given to them (ie to try and avoid speedy decisions - and to keep 'reading up' a constant priority).
- Veropedia - It's bothered me since I first found out about it. I'm sure we had an article on Danny Wool?
- Chapters - so have these. Where is the Wikipedia article for these too?
Anyone else?
- Tired of seeing rotating barnstars at the top of disruptive editor's user pages?
- Tired of the OTT use of ad hominem? Especially the retort of "ad hominem attack", after you have merely posed a question!
WIKIPEDIA
I've been editing Wikipedia, off and on, since 2006. After initially being 'snotty' about it (as many still are), I realised it is too important to be ignored, as it's so often at the top of search engine results. It might be of interest that many people I come across in the UK (including school teachers) have no idea at all that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. They do seem to know of the bad reputation, though in at least one case someone has still used it for convenience. Most people think "wiki" is short for "wicked" (ie "cool"), and that the 'bad reputation' is down to bad compilers and the encyclopaedia generally aiming low.
As an editor I'm prepared to research. I don't claim to be perfect, but I never commit to anything without at least wondering first whether I know enough to make my point. I use Talk pages as much as I article-edit. I dislike 'edit-count chasers' - they do nothing for quality IMO, and I've seen them create work. Wikipedia needs to slow down - it will develop twice as fast if it did. When I read someone's made xx thousand edits I often worry if they will properly read my comments!
I often get a little put off by Wikipedia to be honest - so if I am making a contribution, it will be more often than not because I am very serious about it.
Wikipedia says Be Bold, and usually I am. I can probably lack a few graces sometimes, it's not that I'm strictly impolite. If I've got something to say, and I'm in, I'll say it. I am very logical, but can be passionate too.
I like to see the funny side, but my humour can sometimes be a little dry.
ABOUT ME
I am a 37-year-old carer for someone with Alzheimer's Disease, and have developed a stong interest in AD over the last few years. I am also a graphic designer with publishing and copy experience (in prose).
I am a socialist. That seems to mean something a little different in the USA - so if you are American, try not to hold it against me! I am decent, honest, fair and open-minded.
Matt
[edit] WP (not confetti)
WP:No Point of View - Undue Weight (Policy) - Always a good referring point.
WP:No Original Research (Policy)
WP:Wikipedia is not a News report (Policy)
WP:POV Fork (Policy) - Covers how side articles should not be created to cover information that cannot find consensus in the main article.
WP:Coatrack (essay) - Covers how side issues should not be used to camouflage any biased reasons for a side article’s existence (or continual existence).
WP:Let the facts speak for themselves (Policy) - Advises against over-description of facts that are already simple, well-covered and conclusive.
WP:Neutrality and Verifiability (Policy) - Shows how an abundance of passable citations cannot negate certain neutrality issues.
WP:Notability is not temporary (Guideline) - Shows how past importance and/or the possibility of future importance does not amount to Notability.
WP:Assume Good Faith (Guideline) - How it shows ‘bad faith’ to negatively read (or misread) semantic, imperfect, miswritten or unclear details in someone’s comment - when it is reasonable to assume a positive meaning. Also - paranoia, and grouping people together.
WP:Don't ba a fanatic - 6 decent points
Gaming/Disruption:
WP:Gaming the system (Guideline) - lists how people can use various policies to actually force through their own bias, inc;
WP:Refusal to 'get the point' (Guideline) - ‘Bad faith’ editors who ignore disproven points, repeating their chosen tacks.
WP:Playing policies against each other (Guideline) – Being addressed over a specific policy breach, and retorting with other policy.
WP:Wikilawyering (Guideline) - Putting letter before spirit of law, carefully misinterpreting policy, and using formal terms inappropriately.
WP:Stonewalling (Guideline) – Using gaming tactics to block or hold back something from occurring (consensus, a point being understood, a resolution, an event etc).
Also useful:
WP:EL#ADV - External Links Confilict of interest
PERSONAL NOTES
Coatrack, Core issues, Galloway, Pratchett FA, Alzheimer's, Obama/madrasssa, UK nationality guideline, British Isles, Respect, Morning Star, List of United States Journalism scandals/UK, MP Voting records (Lammy etc), Wales, MEDMOS, CAM, Autism
