User:SteveCoppock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, here goes something...

Consider this page a snowflake that just landed on Wikipedia. It's here to find other similar snowflakes, gathering themselves into a small ball and start rolling down the hill until their momentum brings about some needed changes. See below for more on that and if you want to add your flake to the ball.

This page is my actual name and no I'm not the New Jersey motorcycle racer (who doesn't seem to have a page - hint, hint anyone). At the moment I don't have a wikipedia page, but I think that might just change in the coming months. I started coming to wikipedia under a handle about a year ago and got somewhat obsessed with editing & creating articles (I think my first forray with a just an IP addy was for The Apple Pan in West LA, which isn't even my favorite burger joint in town LOL).

I am a producer/writer/filmmaker/entrepreneur/gadfly

[edit] Snowball Down A Hill

Even grand changes and solutions to problems start with one or two people deciding that doing something about a problem is worth forgoing repeats of American Idol. Right now I see a lot of problems with some pretty simply solutions if only folks would get involved, so I'm sending as many snowballs down the hillside as I can. You don't have to be the only one to push it along, but just keep the faith that your help makes a difference. It has to or we are all doomed to whatever fate we make for ourselves by believing otherwise.

Wikipedia has reached a crossroads it seems.

I've come across one too many accounts of formerly active members who are just tired of dealing with the infighting and lack of intuitive navigation aids. Some even post "goodbyes" that the overzealous editors have made working on articles more work than joy. And for something none of us are getting paid to do, that's a must to avoid. It should also be much easier for non-webheads to use. The pool of editors is only limited by making it something only the HMTL proficient can use effectively.

But mostly there needs to be more accountablity and visibility of those who are administrators and prodigious editors. Folks need to know there are "real" people they can go to for advice and help with problems, especially in regards to the trollish editors. I really don't see a need for the anonymity of handles and IP addresses in the majority of the wikipedia community. Certainly some controversial topics might require it and those with unique names (cough, cough) might fear a troll taking things too far. But if you are that paranoid, try not to think about the fact that some trolls are rather good about ferreting out info based solely on your IP address.

I think some of the more overzealous editors need to remember this is still an online encyclopedia edited by folks sitting in their underwear (cough, cough). As long as there is a source (unless it's too obvious to need one) and the person isn't part of the article's subject, what does it hurt for anything to be in wikipedia as long as it follows the accepted guidelines for style and good writing? Because I can tell you from personal experience it is highly frustrating to write something and then have it all get wiped out because someone quibbles over if it meets the criteria for inclusion. All that does is send good people packing from the get go and leaves just the very pigheaded to argue for days about whether film articles should carry "spoiler warnings" (and I wish I was making that last one up).

The way I see it, Wikipedia can only benefit from the fact that it is the first place people come to research just about anything. From whatever article, folks can then follow the wiki-links to other related subjects or use the source/external links to follow up more (so stop removing all the external links but one. Sure, have a limit, but again be reasonable about inclusion).

We must be doing something right if conservatives feel the need to combat all the facts wikipedia puts out there that causes some serious cognitive dissonance among their faithful. Ah, those facts... such pesky things when it comes to the truth.

(and yes, I'll clean up the spelling mistakes later LOL)

[edit] Some Suggestions

No unsourced articles from IP's or new accounts - yeah, I know, after the above rantings, my first thing might seem counterproductive. But I list it to show that I realize some guidelines that might not be counterproductive for newbies are still needed. Case in point, the number of articles that get started by said newbies that have no links (internal or ex) and no sources. Yes, I know that people like to get that thrill of seeing their first article go up, but they do need to do the bare minimum of research on how to include sources before the write their first one. There should be a special "First Time" page that can walk someone through this that is better set up than what is currently available. Besides, my own experience is probably pretty common, that the first things edited tend to be existing articles needing work or info. Perhaps a warning can come up if someone tries to post something without sources or links and gives them the option to store it in a special "Under construction" area that would also hold the article name.

First Do No Harm/What Does It Hurt becomes the Wikipedia standard - to me the thing I loved about Wikipedia was that it had a laid back, sure-we-have-an-article-on-that attitude. Too many people are getting too literal about the whole "Is it encyclopedic?" thing. Hello - your handle is "DarthLives!" and you are editing an article about an episode of a sitcom.

Active Groups of Support - first and foremost is there needs to be a team that wades in each day and tries to help find sources for articles if requested. There should also be a way to tag the section that needs a citation and start a clock, if no source is posted within 2 weeks or so, it reverts to something without it. Relatedly, there should be link in the interaction or navigation boxes for "Dispute help" so that someone can instantly post a request for arbitration to stop the edit wars and flameouts on talk pages. It should be something randomly assigned so that we can end admins abusing their power by staying involved in conflicts they have a vested interest in.