User:Cellodont
I'm putting a minimal little page here just to turn my username blue.
I enjoy editing Wikipedia as a minor hobby. Mainly, I make changes to grammar and spelling, but I also occasionally add content and references. I believe very much in Wikipedia. It's one of a couple websites left that isn't loaded with ads and clickbait, and for me, it's the most practical single source of information on the internet. HOWEVER, Wikipedia is frustrating as well. My peeves include:
- scores and scores of uninteresting stubs posted daily
- thousands of repetitive articles detailing each and every year of every single sporting event and organization (can't there be a sportspedia?)
- scads of self-promoting biographies of non-notable persons (why not offer paid self-promotion to all-comers, and put a "paid content" template on their pages? $50 per boring stub?)
My concerns don't match the consensus, however, which is that the main threat to Wikipedia is paid editors creating biased content, sometimes amounting to advertising. Personally, I know when I'm looking at a contentious or likely biased article, and I'm not afraid of being misinformed; I don't base any important decisions solely on Wikipedia.
I'm interested in the class of users who spend a lot of time here. I'm a bit unoccupied right now, because a consequence of my particular occupation is that I'm sitting in my office doing less than usual during the coronavirus epidemic. I've had time to dig a bit on this site, and I've found that a bunch of users take a lot of pride in their involvement here, which is usually good, but sometimes very bad. Looking at desysops on ARBCOM is like rubbernecking accidents out on the road, with piles of twisted egos and shattered Wikipedia careers lying about. Amid the smoking and scattered barnstars and userboxes stand the Wikipedians, arguing over diacritics and categories ("categories"...seems like a librarian's concern, and sometimes extreme concern: imagine the librarians, sternly debating how to categorize Bach's compositions (having ever listened to a Brandenburg Concerto?), while millions of casual Wikipedia users stream by, oblivious to the kerfuffle) and portals (what the hell are they? I've poked into one or two, and they seemed useless...). As much as I like Wikipedia, I can't help but wonder if it's worth it. My occasional interactions with the often officious and brusque power users here have found me a bit abraded. They do valuable work, but they are swamped, and it shows.
New and occasional editors learn to contribute by getting "not bitten," which feels a lot like "getting a thicker skin." I would say that one should proceed with caution around here, because conflict is the essential nature of most interactions here. Do what you can, and stay away from what upsets you.
 |
[1] Uncyclopedia
Also Interesting This is a fascinating essay that looked like a predictable bit of warning against taking ownership of articles and edits. It's actually about the Wikimedia Foundation, and how they can change things regardless of contrary wishes on the part of editors, users, and admins. It's written from the point of view of the WMF, and it's a bit edgy. At the bottom of the essay are great links to other interesting stuff.