User:Dib492/Gripes of wrath

Wikipedia gripes

dib492

• I entered dib492 when I created this account, but for reasons best known to itself Wikipedia arrogantly assumes that I really meant to type Dib492. I didn't … but there you are.
  • Turns out that it's actually broken by design.
  • It's not just me — it's so obviously irksome that there's a documented hack to make things work the way they always should have.

• That said, dib492 was only my third choice. Two others got there first … though neither of them have a user page.

Gratuitous complexity

Wikipedia is big, and the supporting WikiMedia engine can do a lot. Often that's good. Sometimes it's a problem.

• Can be quite disproportionate | overwhelming | offputting.
  • Fear, uncertainty and doubt inspired/reinforced by sheer weight of Wikipedia:Editing policy | Wikipedia:Manual of Style | Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines
  • despite Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, Wikipedia:Be bold, and the like.
• Can also be quite involved/complex —
  • e.g.: Help:Wiki markup and especially Wikipedia:Template messages

Deleted articles

I've come across a few articles that have been deleted. Fair enough. That happens, especially if stuff needs refactoring.

But, as far as I can tell, they seem to be deleted! Not just marked as no-longer existing. Sometimes I'd like to see what went before — in particular, this would be useful to see whether what's been deleted is the thing I'm thinking of or whether it was something different. Seems rather Orwellian to me …

• To be specific, consider Portable Graphics Format (2008-01-05 speedy delete per Wikipedia:CSD#A7). As of June 2010 it says "If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below." But I don't know which case applies, and can't know since the page has been deleted.
• If it was deleted for significant legal reasons that might make sense. But Wikipedia:CSD#A7 means that it was "an article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject". In other words, the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Which is why it was deleted. But is that good enough reason for me not to be able to look at it using Wikipedia's history mechanisms? I don't think so.
  • Some might argue that that could dilute Wikipedia's reputation, but I think that's bogus. I've already been told that the article was deleted (and I don't have a problem if you continue to flag that up when I look at the pre-deletion content). I'm also looking back to a previous version. Both of those tell me that I'm going outside what Wikipedia deems 'solid'.
  • Now, some administrators invoke Template:User recovery in their user pages. I pretty much agree with the stated criteria (it's essentially what I said above). But I disagree with the policy. Yes, I could ask the administrator to “userfy” the content — but (at this stage, at least) I only want to look at it. Moreover, many of the same administrators also invoke Template:busy; that's understandable. I don't want to burden them with additional work that they shouldn't need to be doing. I don't want to have to wait until they have time to get back to me. Neither of these inconveniences is necessary.
  • Moreover, it's indicative that the deletion was an over-reaction. Had someone instead replaced the article's content with something more suitable, or even just removed an offending section from a larger article, I would indeed be able to use the history mechanism to get back to it. [Would this apply even were the offending content libelous, personal, or any of the other heineous cases?]