K P wrote:
Every day on Wikipedia I come across shockingly major
scientists who
don't have articles, while every Pokeman card in the universe is
well-catalogued. Species? We don't even have decent articles on the
two dozen or so model organisms that each have hundreds of major
citations. Today I found a nobel prize winner in physics whose topic
we don't even appear to have an article on.
KP
On 8/28/07, Christiano Moreschi <moreschiwikiman(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
From:
Aude <audevivere(a)gmail.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] drama and incivility
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:06:39 -0400
Some messages that come through this mailing list, such as the recent NY
Times article on BLP issues, are good to receive. I like being informed
about such matters relevant to Wikipedia. Others like all "Go away, you
trolling fuckwit." have no place on the mailing list. Am I the only one
here annoyed with such messages? Why can't we be more cordial and polite
towards one another? It's gotten to the point where I may unsubscribe.
The drama here, along with AN/I and other places is souring my opinion
about
contributing to Wikipedia. Why bother anymore? I still like the ideals
behind the project and wish to continue, but would really like it if we can
please tone down the drama and be more civil and cordial towards one
another? If people can't control themselves, then maybe this list could
use
moderation. Though if the moderator is engaging such language, that's not
good.
--
Aude
You'll never get rid of enwiki drama, certainly not on enwiki mailing
lists.
Simple reason? Most people don't have anything to write any more, so they
start fighting instead. Seeing [[Africa]] as a redlink and writing "Africa
is a continent" is fun, but that doesn't happen anymore (and "Africa is a
big continent" is no longer an FA). So, people turn to drama as an
alternative, because conflict is fun as well. A shame, but in this respect
enwiki has become the victim of its own succcess. Antandrus talks about this
better than I can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Antandrus/observations_on_Wikipedia_behav…
Particularly numbers 19 and 20.
C More schi
_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Hotmail is here!
http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And aside from that, a lot of existing articles could sure use a lot of
work. The cleanup backlog is huge, a lot need merged (and my hat's off
to anyone undertaking -that- task), there's still a ton of nonfree image
cleanup to do, and there's tons and tons of stubs that need some type of
disposition (expansion, merge, prod, whatever it may be).
I think, though, that sometimes that's a little tougher-and quite often,
our best writers like to start with a blank page, because there's no one
there owning the article to say "Hey, you can't remove anything!"
"Hey,
you can't merge this!" "Hey, what do you mean third-party sourcing is a
requirement, it's optional!"
If there's really a problem that's pernicious and under-addressed, it is
OWNership and resistance to routine maintenance. We should be cheering
on those who take on such gnoming tasks, and instead we're impeding them
at every turn. In the same vein, there's also a persistent bias against
"deletion" which I can't comprehend. We're all called editors, and the
best editors cut ruthlessly and relentlessly. (Not thoughtlessly,
though, and I think that some people doing it thoughtlessly have created
a bias against doing it at all. This is something else which must be
addressed.)