User:Thought/Wikipedia Standards and Etiquette

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Standards and Etiquette

While perhaps a bit presumptuous, it is most expedient if I expound upon my beliefs of what Wikipedia Standards and Etiquette aught to be, or aught to strive to be (there is a difference between the two, notably).

[edit] Standards

As a historian, I firmly believe that History, by its nature, is the true judge of all other topics. Math, science, politics, everything, once it has passed from the realm of the present, becomes a legitimate part of history. Now the problem herein is that History may be the judge, but History is implemented by Historians, none of which are themselves capable of judging all topics through history. It is a matter of scope; we could not expect a Medieval Historian to talk much about Modern History, nor can we expect a Historian to talk much about the finer points of Zero Point Energy Extraction or some such. That is, unless the Historian specializes in that particular field of knowledge. In such a case the person most capable of discussing the topic is the historian. The physicist is best suited to discovering the future of physics, but the historian is best suited to discussing and contextualizing the past.

Since Wikipedia itself is an encyclopedia of knowledge already obtained by humans, it is inherently in the realm of history. Thus, even if a particular historian does not know much about the topic, the historical method may still be applied. Part of that method is the identification and deleting of Logical Fallacies. Further, the method requires an analysis of the sources as well as the information. Just because an event happened does not mean it is important, even in a particularly small context. Articles need the patience and far reaching sight of the historian to accurately judge what is and is not important. Consider the Cindy Sheehan article; if a historian were allowed to address it then one would quickly find its pages of text reduced to a few paragraphs at best, removing a particularly large violation of Wikipedia’s intent.

[edit] Etiquette

When making changes one should always, without acceptation, leave an explanation. At times this can be nothing more than a simple statement in the comments section of the edit page. Reverts because of vandalism, grammar and spelling corrections, etc. However when one makes significant changes to an article one aught to explain why those changes are necessary and how they improve the general article. If possible, provide a point by point analysis. Similarly, if one must delete another person’s changes then an equally exhaustive replay is mandated by good grace. You may not agree with the person’s changes, but that is not justification enough. There are, in truth, only a handful of acceptable reasons for reverting another person’s changes outside of vandalism. If the person adds a biased POV, if the person’s additions are far too incoherent, if the person’s additions violate the spirit of an encyclopedia, or if the person changed or removed vital information. In each case an argument aught to be offered for how the person violated one of the above, and ideally how to avoid it in the future. If the person left a detailed account of the changes and the reason for those changes then it is only polite, and indeed required by good form, to respond in kind, addressing all pertinent points.

-Thoughts in Progress-