It isn't so much about having my stuff edited as it is that there seems to be a mindset among en.wp editors that stuff needs to be deleted unless they personally think it is important. We have a virtually infinite space in which to write and add to the body of knowledge, so why act as though it needs to be made smaller by applying some arbitrary criterion?
I do not have that much free time to be arguing over trivialities - I'm trying to record history as it has happened from my perspective. If you don't like my objectivity then go do your own research and do some editing - don't go for a 1984 style darconian rewrite/deletion.
Right now I'm spending all my free time wrestling with the article on "light bulb sockets", which I did not originate. It is difficult to talk about the sockets without bringing in all sorts of technical reasons why they are the way they are. I didn't throw out the originator's material - I've expanded it based on my experiences in the theatrical lighting industry. I'm sure someone will eventually want to edit the material and take the time to organize it a bit more. That is ok - it is what collaboration is all about.
On 12/15/2011 8:46 AM, foundation-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 06:37:58 -0700 (MST) From: "Fred Bauder"fredbaud@fairpoint.net Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Vendetta? To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: 46228.66.243.192.69.1323956278.squirrel@webmail.fairpoint.net Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Hmmm... do some of the editors have such a problem with entries that are in progress that they decide to propose them for deletion rather than attempt to support the efforts of the original author by adding to the content or make any effort to improve the article rather than remove it?
Isn't WP supposed to help people by expanding our knowledge and improving the transmission of information?
I've just been subjected to a rather bizarre bunch of activity by Mythpage88, who seems anxious to delete everything I've written over the years in WP on the basis that it isn't "notable".
The work I've documented is a vital part of the arts history in the Silicon Valley during the 1990's - a time when the Internet was making a tremendous impact on original work in performing arts. For example: Virtual Valley might have been sponsored by Pacific Bell and San Jose Metro, but it was the very first time that non-profits had with the ability to use the Internet.
Why shouldn't this be documented on WP? If you think something is an "Ad" then rewrite it - don't delete it just because you can!
Can you point us to a dialogue you have had with Mythpage88?
What's bugging him?
Fred
It isn't so much about having my stuff edited as it is that there seems to be a mindset among en.wp editors that stuff needs to be deleted unless they personally think it is important. We have a virtually infinite space in which to write and add to the body of knowledge, so why act as though it needs to be made smaller by applying some arbitrary criterion?
I do not have that much free time to be arguing over trivialities - I'm trying to record history as it has happened from my perspective. If you don't like my objectivity then go do your own research and do some editing - don't go for a 1984 style darconian rewrite/deletion.
Right now I'm spending all my free time wrestling with the article on "light bulb sockets", which I did not originate. It is difficult to talk about the sockets without bringing in all sorts of technical reasons why they are the way they are. I didn't throw out the originator's material
- I've expanded it based on my experiences in the theatrical lighting
industry. I'm sure someone will eventually want to edit the material and take the time to organize it a bit more. That is ok - it is what collaboration is all about.
Our criteria are not arbitrary: notability is established by information published in generally reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Notability
"history as it has happened from my perspective" sounds like original research.
With respect to light bulb sockets one imagines there is a specialized literature, and many patents...
Fred
In other words, Wikipedia does not have space for what you find interesting. Sorry.
On 12/15/11, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
It isn't so much about having my stuff edited as it is that there seems to be a mindset among en.wp editors that stuff needs to be deleted unless they personally think it is important. We have a virtually infinite space in which to write and add to the body of knowledge, so why act as though it needs to be made smaller by applying some arbitrary criterion?
I do not have that much free time to be arguing over trivialities - I'm trying to record history as it has happened from my perspective. If you don't like my objectivity then go do your own research and do some editing - don't go for a 1984 style darconian rewrite/deletion.
Right now I'm spending all my free time wrestling with the article on "light bulb sockets", which I did not originate. It is difficult to talk about the sockets without bringing in all sorts of technical reasons why they are the way they are. I didn't throw out the originator's material
- I've expanded it based on my experiences in the theatrical lighting
industry. I'm sure someone will eventually want to edit the material and take the time to organize it a bit more. That is ok - it is what collaboration is all about.
Our criteria are not arbitrary: notability is established by information published in generally reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Notability
"history as it has happened from my perspective" sounds like original research.
With respect to light bulb sockets one imagines there is a specialized literature, and many patents...
Fred
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org