[WikiEN-l] {{Spoiler}} insanity

[doc]

Todd Allen wrote:

> 1. WP:OWN is a perfectly valid objection there. Anyone who edits an
> article (in good faith and without vandalizing, of course) is a
> contributor to that article. There's already some nasty, pernicious "Oh,
> you've only edited this article once, so you've got no real say in what
> goes into it" attitude going around. Quite often, the talk page of a
> given article can be just as cliquish, insular, and unfriendly to
> newcomers (especially newcomers who bring new ideas) as those backwater
> policy and guideline pages. We need less of that attitude, not more.
> 
>

Obviously new contributors must  be welcome to an article - in that 
sense WP:OWN is quite right. The problem is with a different type of 
WP:OWNer - the group that is enforcing some stylistic pattern that they 
have agreed - or some standardized infobox REGARDLESS of the view of 
those working on the article - who are actually more knowledgeable about 
the subject - think. (And, let me say I'm not anti-infoboxes, providing 
that the the actual box improves the article and isn't there because 
someone has decided that all articles of  boxes of type x must have boy 
y, regardless of the details of the article).

Let me give some concrete examples:

I was working with others on the bio of a 16th Scots cleric, [[David 
Beaton]] when folk arrived and promptly moved the article to [[David 
Cardinal Beaton]]. When those who know Scots history objected that he's 
never known as that - and that major historical works and contemporary 
records never call him that, we were informed that the stylistic 
guidelines decreed that this was how all Roman Catholic cardinals MUST 
be denoted - and if we wanted to discuss it and reach a consensus we 
could not do so on the article's talk page - but we must go the the 
'Roman Catholic Clergy guideline' page and get the meta-policy changed. 
That's clearly unacceptable - and led to edit wars.

It happened again when folk created a standardized clergy infobox and 
started applying it to all clergy. It had a standard field for 
'Christian denomination' - which was fine for folk of the last few 
centuries - but was then applied to Christians in the first few 
centuries of the church - declaring all of the fathers and apostles to 
be 'Roman Catholic' - became clearly POV.

On another occasion I wrote a historical biography with all available 
information (there is no more) - to find someone with no knowledge of 
the field flew by from wikiproject biographies - marked the article for 
expansion - a need of an infobox - and in lack of an image (when none 
actually exist) - and then walked away. I challenged him to help with 
improving the article - but he was no in the least interested.

I could go on. Obviously new contributors to articles are welcome - 
WP:OWN is no good. But, at the same time, fly-bys who know nothing about 
the subject and are not willing even to stop and think 'what would 
benefit this particular article? How can it be improved?' - need hit 
with a cluestick.