Hi,
viajero(a)quilombo.nl wrote:
except that this metro system
won't be operational until 2011 (!). It made wonder about X's
priorities.
We are all volunteers; nobody gets paid to contribute. Therefore, I
don't see how anyone should impose any priorities on somebody else. In
other words, if someone wanted to work on obskure and insignificant
topics, there's nothing wrong with letting them; there is no way of
forcing them into other topics that interest them less. Who knows, maybe
in 2011 we won't find someone to write out the list of stations, so it's
good to already have one.
And herein lies the crunch. To begin with, X favors
wikifying words, such as
The question what words are relevant to the context and which aren't is
purely subjective -- unfortunately. I understand from my own experience
that it can often feel to you like it's completely obvious that "beach"
has no relevancy to an article on the [[Sun]], say. But it's not
actually this obvious. Someone else might feel this link is relevant,
and they might feel that this is completely obvious.
We cannot formulate a rock-solid policy that will dictate which words
should be wikified and which ones shouldn't. We have to live with the
fact that there are, and always will be, disagreements about this.
Probably the best way to handle it (for both you and "X") is to try not
to have too strong feelings about it.
More critical for me, however, is that X adamantly
opposes removing ANY
information from Wikipedia: everything that goes in cannot go out.
Well, I would agree to that. Of course you can refactor articles and
perhaps move little insignificant factoids to the bottom, but seeing as
one of Wikipedia's goals is to record as much of human knowledge as
possible, why should any of it ever be removed?
For example, I'm pretty certain that somewhere in Wikipedia it says that
humans at some point in history used to be under the impression/belief
that atoms are unsplittable (as evidenced by the word's etymology). You
see, even if some ground-breaking research brings to light new facts
that contradict existing information in the Wikipedia, perhaps it's best
*NOT* to remove it, but only prefix it with "It used to be believed
that" and add "until in [[2003]] an experiment by [[John Doe
(physicist)]] proved that ......"
developing a critical eye for what should be included
and what not,
Everything should be included ;-)
However, yesterday he
reverted an entire article in which I dewikified a couple of common
words, thereby junking other edits I had also made.
This is, of course (not taking into account possible bias due to your
point of view) not very nice, but the best you can do about it is
reinstate your other edits. Of course, you could also revert his revert,
and if it ends in an edit war, then a sysop will take care of the
article and (hopefully) keep your useful information in while making an
educated decision regarding the linking of common words.
But there
are other more substantial articles dearer to my heart (that X has also
worked on) which I feel need work, but I don't feel that now I can
comfortably do so.
Indeed I am starting to suspect that this is one common reason people
leave us before we ever see substantial contribution from them. We have
a page telling people to be 'Bold in editing pages', but some people are
bolder than others. Especially when an existing contributor ("X" in this
case) is being bold in reverting, it is relatively uncommon for the
other party to initiate an edit war (a revert war) if they're a newbie
(you in this case).
Greetings,
Timwi