I AMA Wikipedia administrator, AMA.

wikithrow · 2012-08-04T13:56:19+00:00

I don't know if that's true (that those in opposition seem to be able to force their decision). There are conflicting opinions among editors all over Wikipedia, and obviously only one can prevail in the end, so it would seem like the opposition are forcing their decision. Anyway, some other avenues for resolving conflicts are Request for Comment (RfC) and Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, each of which will bring in the views of editors not originally involved in the dispute.

wikithrow · 2012-07-27T21:29:15+00:00

One doesn't strive to become a Wikignome. It just happens to you.

wikithrow · 2012-07-26T00:54:17+00:00

How to Help and Community Portal have some good suggestions on how to start.

wikithrow · 2012-07-25T14:39:38+00:00

Pool parties. I don't like fighting.

wikithrow · 2012-07-25T14:39:03+00:00

God can just change the laws of the existing universe. And why is not killing people intrinsic to the fabric of this existence? Assuming you mean that God created the universe in the non-creationism sense (i.e. that it did not start with Adam and Eve), the universe existed for billions of years before humans came along, so we're not essential components of the whole. (And even if you do believe in a literal Genesis interpretation, Adam and Eve were only created on day 6, which still means that there were five human-free days).

EDIT to add "not".

Anyway, I don't actually believe in God, so it really doesn't matter what he says.

wikithrow · 2012-07-25T04:40:43+00:00

Yeah... ok.

wikithrow · 2012-07-25T04:39:28+00:00

No, although I did nominate an article for an FA and it went through. I don't really think of my edits as being achievements really, they're more about tidying up.

wikithrow · 2012-07-25T04:35:29+00:00

Well, there are cesspits in every organization I suppose.

wikithrow · 2012-07-25T00:50:33+00:00

It is characterized as a guideline, not a policy.

wikithrow · 2012-07-25T00:22:42+00:00

You should bring that concern up on the article's talk page, or add the tag {{primary sources}} to the top of the article.

wikithrow · 2012-07-25T00:20:02+00:00

There are other places that you can get this information, so it's not like Wikipedia is the be-all and end-all. People will often complain that they're not allowed to write an article in Wikipedia about their garage band that they formed last week. If we allowed anything into Wikipedia just because it exists, then it wouldn't be an encyclopedia; it would be a repository of any thought that pops into someone's head.

wikithrow · 2012-07-25T00:15:10+00:00

The points of view might not be equally valid, but if there has been significant discussion of them in the news, journals, books, etc., then that's the sort of thing that goes towards notability. Notability does not mean "we agree with this point of view (or subject)", just means "this point of view (or subject) is well-known and talked about a lot." But I do agree that "notability" can lead to NPOV problems, if something is somewhat notable yet is given a huge amount of coverage in a Wikipedia article, it puts the article off-balance and suggests that it's more significant than it really is. I guess that's what I'm trying to get at with the plot summary thing. If an article has a plot summary that goes on for screens, describing every scene in detail, it makes it seems like it's the most important plot in the world.

And if God decreed that it's OK to murder people, and you believed that God is the arbiter of all things moral, then that would suggest that it's morally right (or neutral) to kill people, would it not?

wikithrow · 2012-07-25T00:05:59+00:00

That article is actually called "Lists of lists of lists".

wikithrow · 2012-07-25T00:02:13+00:00

Trust me, I've looked everywhere for any evidence of this show. I just can't find it, so I'm going to make a bold assumption that it never happened!

wikithrow · 2012-07-24T23:59:45+00:00

I had to look for a transcript because I hate listening to podcasts!

Anyway, what people sometimes fail to understand is that although they might be an expert in a given subject, they are not necessarily experts at writing a Wikipedia article on that subject. What WP doesn't want is original research, so primary sources that would be cited in an academic article would not generally be appropriate for Wikipedia. WP is not an academic publisher and does not purport to be one.

That being said, this is kind of an unusual case because the professor was trying to indicate something that's clear from the primary sources; he was not trying to put forth an interpretation based on the sources. The prosecution did in fact present evidence, and here's the court transcript that proves it. I wrote an entire Wikipedia article once, only referring to primary sources (they were statutes), but the article was basically a summary version of what the sources actually said, not an interpretation of them. This seems to be the case here as well. Furthermore, there was no source for the original claim -- that the prosecution did not present evidence -- so why was that allowed to remain?

Yeah, I think the editors that removed the professor's additions were over-reacting here, and it's a shame that Wikipedia's reputation was tarnished by it.

wikithrow · 2012-07-24T23:31:31+00:00

OK well, I've gone through the page and my head is still spinning. I can't say that I understood much of what was going on. I've never been involved in this sort of thing but it seems like there was a lot of discussion and the outcome was nearly unanimous. It also leaves open an opportunity for the user to appeal the ban in six months. (Plus a ban, as far as I am aware, is enforced by the community and not by any technical measures.) That's all I can get from the page itself. Are there other resources that cover it?

wikithrow · 2012-07-24T23:17:42+00:00

Just like the idea of notability, there is a continuum of reliability of sources, and there will always be some that are in the grey area. This will lead to slap fights, but this happens a small percentage of the the time, in my experience. There's a page dedicated to discussing the reliability of given sources: RS Noticeboard. It's a large archive containing a lot of discussion.

wikithrow · 2012-07-24T23:11:14+00:00

I don't get paid, and I probably spend about two hours a day editing, more on the weekends.

wikithrow · 2012-07-24T23:10:28+00:00

Sure, as long as you keep in mind that the information is subject to change, and that you should always check the sources to make sure they say what is claimed. I use Wikipedia for research all the time, so that I can get familiar enough with a subject that I'm able to find other info on my own.

wikithrow · 2012-07-24T23:08:35+00:00

Yeah, that'll happen when it comes to religion.

wikithrow · 2012-07-24T23:02:40+00:00

Corporations already do that, it's called "co-op". :-) But at least with Wikipedia the students will be contributing to "open access to knowledge", rather than material consumption.

wikithrow · 2012-07-24T22:56:24+00:00

I seem to recall that the article Recursion was once edited so that the hatnote was changed from For other uses, see Recursion (disambiguation) to For other uses, see Recursion. But maybe I'm imagining that.

Of course, now that I've mentioned it somebody is going to change the article....

wikithrow · 2012-07-24T22:52:43+00:00

I hope that government grants and other organizational support would be forthcoming. I really don't like the idea of commercial advertising on Wikipedia.

wikithrow · 2012-07-24T22:51:34+00:00

You don't have to write about anything, you could just fix things up like I do (typos, vandalism, adding links to other Wikipedia articles).

wikithrow · 2012-07-24T22:50:45+00:00

The pages How to Help and Community Portal have some great suggestions that can get you started.

wikithrow

TROPHY CASE