User talk:Scartol/wikithoughts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scartol   Biography   Talk   WikiThoughts   Drawing Board

Some thoughts about Wikipedia and my experience using it. Comments and feedback are always welcome here or at my talk page. Newest items are at the top.

Contents

[edit] AGF Challenge Answers

Note: I'm responding to these without looking at anyone else's replies. I hope I don't make myself look like a total jackass.

1. My wife is not a coauthor

I feel that a balance should be struck here between the person's wishes and the evidence from reliable sources. While I don't feel that the email in question should be ignored, it seems fair to counterbalance it with the characterization of the books in other places. So I'd vote to see the article contain a reference to the email, as well as evidence from the assembled other sources. Something like: "Although Mr. X later insisted that he is the sole author of every book bearing his name, he gave credit to his wife during an interview in 19xx." As much as possible, I think we should provide all the salient perspectives, and let readers decide.

2. My town's library

I'd start by looking at the userpage (if any) of the editor who created/wrote the article. I'd see if they've been informed about WP:CS and WP:RS. If not, I'd do so. If they have, I'd remind them of the need to cite things, and offer to copyedit the article to remove POV prose. I'd also liberally sprinkle {{fact}} tags where appropriate. (I'm big into the DIY ethic, as much as time permits.)

3. I am the best

I confess to having no good knowledge about the legal liabilities which face Wikipedia if someone doesn't like how they're represented. My understanding is that the WP:BLP guidelines are designed to forestall legal action, so my response here is to adhere very closely to those guidelines. I don't believe a person can WP:OWN the article about him/herself, so I'd say it's sensible to have a section called something like "Academic credentials" which presents the facts about the conflict in detail, with plenty of citations to reliable sources.

4. Arrow of Time

I don't think it's fair to compare the New York Times or Encyclopedia Britannica to Wikipedia; we have a different set of values and guiding principles. That said, I will repeat my above note that I'm woefully unschooled about the legal elements involved, and I'm always saddened when people threaten to sue each other if they don't get their way.

The prohibition on unsourced, unrelated elements is not specific to this article, nor to the big bang/creationism debate. Just as a discussion of Brangelina would be irrelevant (and quickly removed) from the Fight Club article, so too does it make sense for us to remove this comment from the YEC page. What happens next (3RR violations, incivility, etc) is a matter of clear policy, independent of the content of the discussion.

5. Ghost in the machine

I chuckled when I read this sentence:

Since there are no mainstream scientific studies of CPP, the editors demand that no negative material or mainstream material be presented in the Wikipedia articles on CPP, since there are no mainstream reliable sources.

I wonder what the "mainstream reliable sources" are for the existence of CPP? I daresay there are probably none, which makes it a war of unreliable sources. Seems like this phenomenon should be presented in the same way that we approach 9/11 conspiracy theories and Hollow Earth.

Hope you don't mind me hopping in here. If you're interested, this question was likely inspired by really lengthy debate at the contentious article Electronic voice phenomenon. Much of what inspired Filll's questions was the frustration of many in the community with the ways that we approach such articles. It's my belief that, while it's an unrealistic expectation that a heated real-life debate will be completely tranquil on Wiki, the community needs to develop better mechanisms to ensure that our articles have a correlation with scientifically analyzed reality and also are not constant warzones. --JayHenry (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

6. Take me to your Leader Extraterrestrial Shape-shifting Reptile

I actually saw someone buy Icke's book Children of the Matrix when I worked in a Borders bookstore. Anyway, I can't imagine ever believing that these wingnut texts are "reliable sources"; just because something is printed on paper doesn't make it reliable. Just as we would never accept The Turner Diaries as a reliable source on Judaism in the US, neither do I feel we should accept Icke's books as reliable sources for biogenetic information about world leaders. Isn't this precisely the reason we have discussions about what is and is not reliable? It's not as though we say "Anything goes" when it comes to WP:RS.

Original Research Alert! When I had the opportunity to ask the Dalai Lama about absolutism in nonviolence, he said that it's important to look at everything on a case-by-case basis. I feel that the same applies to WP:RS.

7. Related to a saint

I'd put a brief mention of Oacan's aunt's findings in the article, leaving most of it referenced to established reliable sources. Then create another page about the aunt's theory and work, and let editors find their way to it if they're so inclined. This compromise seems fair and sensible to me.

8. I make my own rules

To paraphrase Dan Savage, BTMFA. I think our patience and assumptions of good faith must be halted when someone decides to unilaterally rewrite the rules and mislead new users as to how the project works. I can't just decide that the WP:MOS doesn't apply to me, and use comma splices because I think they're acceptable. Although the rules are community-generated, they're still rules. We should still have consequences for those who break them. Surely anarchists in the Spanish Civil War had to deal with people who wanted to hijack their plans? (I try to be an anarchist as much as possible, but I don't think that projects like this can function with no authority whatsoever.) – Scartol • Tok 17:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't like comma splices, I think they are okay. No, just kidding! --JayHenry (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Visions for WikiProjects

Two thoughts have recently occurred to me about what could be done to strengthen WikiProjects while simultaneously fortifying other areas of Wikipedia:

  1. Each user makes a semi-annual commitment. It doesn't have to be anything major, but a general time frame and a specific task would keep people more focused than just slapping a name on a page, I think.
  2. Each WikiProject maintains a templated list of related articles at FAC. Members could keep this template on their userpages (or a bot might could send out announcements). This would alert people interested in a general subject area of articles submitted to FAC, to increase participation in that process.

Just some thoughts. Feedback, anyone? – Scartol • Tok 02:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It's getting bad

You know you've been editing Wikipedia too much when you realize you can tell the difference between a hyphen and an en dash in 12-point Courier. Eek! – Scartol • Tok 01:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Feeling

Sometimes contributing to Wikipedia is like handing someone a ball-peen hammer and allowing them to smash you in the face with it. Then you have to smile and say "Thanks!" and wait for them to smash you in the face again. – Scartol · Talk 17:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add what you've found, not what you know

My first real experience with adding to Wikipedia happened in June of 2006, when I created an article called Chaos Theory of Literature. It was quickly deleted, and perhaps rightly so. (I think it could have been merged, but that's a different matter.)

My mistake was not in wanting to add to Wikipedia; I was (and am) a smart guy with important contributions to make to the project. My mistake was wondering "What does Wikipedia need that it doesn't have?" I had done some research into chaos theory as applied to literature, and so I went looking for information about it on WP. Finding none, I started a new page and filled it with what I knew. Alas, I hadn't read WP:CS carefully, nor did I understand how to write in the style of the project.

What I've come to realize is that I messed up by trying to add information I had in my brain, not on paper. I had books and could have (still can, I suppose) added info to other pages. Instead, I tried to declare that a theory existed where there wasn't really one. (The instigator of the AfD, while correct, could have been less cruel, but that's a different matter.)

Now that I've got my WikiHead on straight, I try to impress upon new users the importance of not just adding things that they know about – you've got to have solid documentation, and it has to be included in the appropriate way. (The best bet is to get your feet wet by doing some stuff at the Community Portal or getting involved in a Collaboration or WikiProject.)

In fact, it may be the case that we should work on things we haven't studied in depth before, since we're less likely to include (intentionally or otherwise) classifications or perspectives that aren't consistent with the project's guidelines. I knew very little about Honoré de Balzac before I started working on that WikiProject, and I couldn't be happier with how my work on that page has proceeded. (One of these days I'll get back to work on HdB-related stuff!) – Scartol · Talk 02:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep discussions brief

Please, please, please remember that the comments you type today will be read (probably with some care and focus) by editors and admins tomorrow. Therefore, comments on talk pages should be:

  1. Concise. Strunk & White order us to "remove needless words". 'Nuff said.
  2. To the point. Sometimes asides are important, but use them with great care. Nothing is more annoying to someone (like me) trying to wade through an edit war or content dispute than slogging past meaningless unrelated comments. And no user should ever repeat him/herself in a discussion (unless absolutely necessary), and certainly not in a single post. Instead, become friends with the "Show preview" button, read and revise your writing (a Wikipedia article talk page isn't MySpace), and structure your comments so that they appear in an appropriate order.
  3. Linked. If you're referring to a section of the article, link to it. If there's an image or quotation under dispute, make it easy to find for the people who come after you. A little more work on your part now saves the next person a lot more work later.

How many more sentences can I write here before someone accuses me of glaring hypocrisy? – Scartol · Talk 02:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What a difference one month can make

Now that I've got my WikiHead on straight, I've really moved into the manic stages of WP addiction. I've gotten a "wow" out of both Awadewit and qp10qp – now if I can just get JayHenry to write it, I'll have my hat trick.

Two things I'm working on:

  1. WP:OWN. I've been starting a lot of new articles and de-stubbing others. When anyone later goes through and adds things or tweaks my writing, I get very nervous and have to resist the urge to change it back. I've never worked well with others in any creative medium, so it's going to take some patience for me to get used to this concept. My only other option is to write so flawlessly that no one will have anything to add.
  2. Not fighting enough. Everywhere I look, I see users involved in flame wars, edit battles, and temporary bans. I must be doing something wrong. Perhaps I'm not sufficiently bold.

Back to work! – Scartol · Talk 20:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dagnabbit

I just got done putting all my userboxes into the Template: namespace, because I thought that's where they're best found (after I saw some folks moving mine to that namespace). Now it looks like I was wrong to do this. See WP:UM. Grr! Anyone wanna move 'em all back for me? -- Scartol 17:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Settling in

I think I'm finally getting the hang of this Wikipedia thing. When I first started, I sorta looked around to see what didn't exist yet — but I was doing this on my own. I've found that the best bet for a new user is instead to get involved with a WikiProject and see what's needed there, rather than just stabbing in the dark.

The Independent had an article today about corporate and government censorship of WP articles. As usual, they made it seem as if the edits made were permanent and weren't noticed by editors. It really irks me when people are so unfamiliar with how WP works and they trash it based on their imaginary conception of the process. Reminds me of Andrew Keen and his pompous whining on The Colbert Report. (Speaking of Keen, be sure to read his debate with Emily Bell at Guardian Unlimited.) -- Scartol 13:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This may be verboten

Having just read Wikipedia Is Not a Blog, I wonder if having this page is against the rules. However, insofar as it's intended to share thoughts about the project itself, I wonder if there isn't a place for it? (After all, we write each other notes about the experience, yes? Is it different that this isn't directed toward anyone specific?) If this page is verboten, can I write about how I feel about using WP on my talk page? If so, can I have this page so long as it's called something else? If not, is the bit below about "Frustrated" also against policy? 'Twould be a shame if it is, since that rant helped me get the help I needed. Hmm. -- Scartol 00:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feeling official

I doubt he realizes it (or if he does, good for him), but JayHenry really had a big impact on me when he took the time to not only help get my Robert E. Murray article onto Did You Know, but also wrote a little personal note to me about it and the process. Other admins could take a tip from him.

For me, admin-ing is like teaching: The person with the authority and/or experience has a responsibility to look out for the noobs among us. After all, we are all noobs at some point -- and insofar as we have to be the change we want to see yadda yadda, we ought to give the guidance we appreciated getting or would have liked to get.

Anyway, getting onto DYK was very satisfying; I spent quite some time afterwards adding -- and making my own -- userboxes. What a remarkable waste of time! (And yet, I feel that a Userpage with 'boxes looks much more official than one with just standard templatia. It suggests that the person has at least a passing familiarity with how this place works.) -- Scartol 23:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A little note. One day when I was ill and had nothing better to do, I spent hours reading past and present RfAs. It is really quite revealing. Many, many, many administrators are not primarily content editors before they become admins. I don't know if you saw the survey a few months ago about what is important for adminship, but writing articles ranked near the bottom. That is not my opinion, frankly, but it does seem to be the general opinion around here. Awadewit | talk 06:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You're apparently drawing an incorrect inference from a biased sample. Most people who hang around mechanics and policy pages, such as WP:RFA, or even that survey, by definition, take that time from working on articles. Therefore, any RFA with a small participation will naturally be skewed to those who value hanging around mechanics and policy pages more. But that doesn't mean that editors as a whole don't value editing articles highly. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DrKiernan is a demonstration, look at it over time; the first commentors shot down the Dr for not being a process wonk, but when his stream of FAs made news and other editors heard about it, his adminship turned around and passed. That's a rare case, true, but note that people with 6 FAs are themselves rare cases. If say, Awadewit ran, I think she would get similar results. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frustrated

I'm really irked by Wikipedia lately. I busted my hump making the initial page for Robert E. Murray, and I proposed it for the "Did You Know" new articles page. I was told that the tidbit I included (the bit about the talking squirrel) was a bit too POV, since it came from the newsletter of the United Mine Workers. So I tried another pitch, and another admin said: "I find that to be not very interesting."

Maybe doing this kind of research and work doesn't mean much to these admins -- maybe they have lots of free time and they don't understand how important it would be for me to have my work recognized. It's really frustrating to me that this tiny bit of recognition isn't something they can be bothered with. No suggestions on how I could make it better, nothing. Just: No, your article summary isn't good enough.

Annoying! -- Scartol 00:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally understand your frustration and I'm sorry my initial comment about the article wasn't very helpful! DYK is one of those places where a relatively small number of editors are trying to process so much information that a lot of stuff slips through the cracks. I've had a nomination or too slip through as well, or had trouble getting a hook -- but when it happens the very first time you submit to DYK it's so discouraging. You put a huge amount of work into this, and when I saw the 17 references I thought, "Oh man, we have to use this article!" So we'll think of something! I'll go take another look and suggest some hooks at T:TDYK.
Wikipedia often seems like a really cold and nasty place. And there are some admins who are mean, and some who aren't but just don't realize what they sound like. But, because it's so big, there's a lot of good users too. So don't give up quite yet! --JayHenry 03:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Update - Thanks to the kind support of JayHenry, it looks like the REM page will be on DYK. Cheers to JH for rewriting the hook (after I tried three times with no luck). -- Scartol 22:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)