User:Psb777
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Wikipedia shame, or the lack thereof
Why can't we link here? And [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page here]? Or can we? Have "they" not seen fit to censor this yet?
 |
This user supported Giano in the 2007 Arbitration Elections. |
[edit] Anonymous cowards
Paul Beardsell thinks people should have enough courage of their convictions so as not to hide behind a pseudonym. Of course, this may be impossible when who you are is considered more important than what you say. He can be e-mailed at <HisFirstName>@<HisSurname>.com. There's also a web site.
[edit] Wikipedia and society
It should not surprise us that Wikipedia has become a mirror of larger society. There are arbitrators (judges) some of whom are good and others bad at assessing behaviour against a set of standards and rules (laws), some arrogantly ignore due process. Some arbitrators even behave commonly in ways that they do not tolerate in others. Admins (cops) who are mostly good but some who enforce the rulings with over-bearing and bullying zeal, and they do so without much criticism. Surely, there are vandals who need effective policing, and otherwise good citizens need to be encouraged to act reasonably: Admins and arbitrators are needed (probably). Wikipedia is great, mostly, as is society. And has its failings, similarly. The vast body of editors (citizens) are unconcerned about failings of the system until it effects them personally. The freedoms of society have not evolved naturally, they have had to be fought for, and they must be jealously guarded. I suggest the same is true at Wikipedia. Bad behaviour from arbitrators and admins is worse than bad behaviour from ordinary editors. It should not be tolerated. These failings need to be pointed out. And good admins and good arbitrators must agree. Necessarily. They already do, of course. But they should do so out loud, not silently.
[edit] What I want for Christmas
[edit] Article Assessments
These are counterproductive.
And as ANYONE can assess an article we end up with the ridiculous situation where one editor goes around placing his own PERSONAL assessment on articles - usually without any constructive criticism. These assessments, embedded in a neatly crafted template, then look official, not just the opinion of one editor.
Let's please stop this bad-mark / gold-star nonsense. Don't assess an article, improve it. If you assess an article you are already asked to "please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.". But often / mostly this does not occur. And you know why? Because it is often just as easy to improve the article as it is to critique it properly. What you assessors are doing more than anything is demotivating contributors to the encyclopedia. I spend considerable time working on many articles to find that some lazy sod has come along and given them ratings without giving a reason or suggestion for improvement. This is demotivating.
You lazy assessors: Stop! Article assessment: No more, thanks!
It is often just as easy to improve the article as it is to critique it properly. Ratings without a REASONED assessment and SUGGESTIONS for improvement are a waste of time. Most article assessment ratings do not have reasons or suggestions. I am close to saying I will not contribute to an improperly assessed article. Others must be similarly irritated by the critics around here.
Assessments are not necessarily a bad idea! The problem we have is the unreasoned assessment. Assessing an article as somewhat lacking in quality is USELESS unless you make suggestions for improvement. Also, who are you (or any other single person or any self appointed group) to set themselves up as capable of assessing the quality or even importance of an article? Quality of prose? Quality of facts? Importance in monetary terms, number of bombs dropped, innovations? No. If you're going to assess without specifying reasons and improvement suggestions, then that's a nonsense.
As I happen across article assessments made without providing cogent reasons I will remove the assessment. If I disagree with the assessment I will change it. I encourage all of you to do the same, in the interests of a better Wikipedia.
