Zero <megamanzero@521com> wrote: On 6/25/06, Zero wrote:
Please. The value and spirit of the encyclopedia
comes before the community every time. The spirit of the encyclopedia is the sharing of
knowledge and the freedom of this information unhindered by the source material in any
capacity. Sticking silly labels on articles created by hard sweat doesn't fullfill
that spirit. Making assumptions on the basis of a networking site must not be mistaken
for the the production and flourishing of the encyclopedia. - Zero
>Ok, just to carry on your thinking, how do you feel
about the
following "silly labels":
>* This article is a stub - you can help out by
editing it.
>* Please expand and improve this section as described on this
article's talk
page or at Requests for expansion, then remove this
message
>* The neutrality of this article is disputed.Please
see the discussion
on the talk page.
>* This article needs more context around or a
better explanation of
technical details to make it more accessible to general
readers and
technical readers outside the specialty, without removing technical
details. See below for more information.
>* The title of this article should be eBay. The
initial letter is
capitalized due to technical restrictions.
>* Due to technical limitations, some web browsers
may not display some
special characters in this article.
>I have to admit to a sense of irony that we warn
users of excessively
>technical language, and we warn them if the title of the page isn't
>quite right. We even warn them that the article uses unicode
>characters. But we refuse to warn them that they may witness >>seriously
>obscene material or have their enjoyment of a work of fiction totally
>spoilt.
Ho hum.
Steve
I must admit the mentioned tags are really quite feasible in wikipedia. As an editor
with over 14,000 edits, many of them new articles, I must conceed the appropriate tags
are quite valuable to the intregity, spirit, improvement and operation of the
encyclopedia.
Lets review:
* Stub tag- Lest we forget, this is wikipedia. As an editor, I value completion and
professional appearence, so personally I strongly oppose the creation of a brief article;
rather I prepare a rather detailed document over a time period in
[[User:MegamanZero/Sandbox]] and move it to mainspace upon completion. This, or I merely
create the article in one go from the outset.
However, its reasonable to forsee editors do not follow this personal standard, and
create a brief article immediately, perhaps without research or proper overview. In this
case, we insert the stub template to being attention to it. And as an editor that does
much writing, I know from experience they garner attention to make improvement. And
improved articles means an improved encyclopedia. Are you aware of how many articles have
benefited from expansion from me becuase I took note of the stub or clean-up tag...? Take
a gander at my contribution tree. I assure you it is very productive indeed.
* I look upon the second template with slight dissapointment, although I admit it is
useful to an outside party with a tendency to expand articles at a whim. Being Bold in
wikipedia gets work done.
* I strongly endorse this tag. It provides a service to the encyclopedia in that it
requires the attention of a neutral editor. In these cases, all that is required is a
rewrite after some research on the matter. I've used it to the advantage in many
occassion and it highlights a need when an editor blatently commits to the violation of
the neutrality we demand at wikipedia.
* I'm not going to explain the rest in detail; they are all tools for editors to
discuss upon for the improvement of the article itself. When readers come to wikipedia,
they must expect this is a volunteer project and there is work in progress to make it to
the highest quality.
"Our goal is to get wikipedia to Britianica quality or better" - Jimbo Wales
And we will get there, I'm positive. But we have quite a way to go. The most
glaring dissapointment I have with the spoiler tag is it wasn't developed with an
encyclopedia in mind. Many users claim the offense of "Oh but its nice and it will
help not to spoil them". This isn't that kind of website.Wikipedia is an
uncensored, pure callaboration of knowledge unhindered by what other social websites may
do.
You say" "well it doesn't help the wikipedia, but the reader in a way
similar to usenet". This is wrong. Anything promoting such external social ideals
lacking in edvidence to improve the encyclopedia itself should of course be deleted on
sight. - Zero
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
---------------------------------
Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger
with Voice.