I'm critical about the methodology of Wikipedia, but unwilling to use a flawed methodology to try and fix it.
Excessive rule-making
editVarious figures involved with the Wikimedia Foundation have argued that Wikipedia's increasingly complex policies and guidelines are driving away new contributors to the site. Former chair Kat Walsh was quoted in a 2009 article as criticising the project, saying, "It was easier when I joined in 2004 ... Everything was a little less complicated ... It's harder and harder for new people to adjust."[1] Wikipedia administrator Oliver Moran views "policy creep" as the major barrier, writing that "the loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage".[2] According to Jemielniak, the sheer complexity of the rules and laws governing content and editor behavior has become excessive and creates a learning burden for new editors.[3][4] In 2014 Jemielniak suggested actively rewriting, and abridging, the rules and laws to decrease their complexity and size.[3][4]
The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc. We would like everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. How many times have you read something and thought—Why doesn't this page have correct spelling, proper grammar, or a better layout? Wikipedia not only lets you add and edit articles: it wants you to do it. This does require politeness, but it works. You'll see. Of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally! They, like all of us, just wish to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedia as it can possibly be. Also, when you see a conflict in a talk page, do not be just a "mute spectator"; be bold and drop your opinion there!
Wikipedia content is intended to be factual, notable, verifiable with cited external sources, and neutrally presented.
"Wikipedia should be a collaborative environment, not gang warfare."[1] Durova
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability <-- Somehow this seems to have been lost.
I tend to ignore all rules, and believe in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Wikipedia_is_a_work_in_progress:_perfection_is_not_required
Interesting times. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Introduction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EDIT#Wiki_markup
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#First:_Negotiating_neutrality_with_others
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Talk_subpage
If you're here for the serious task at hand, be respectful of the other editors you have to work with, as if you were an adult in a relatively civilized workplace, because you have to work with them in order to get consensus to improve the article, and you're going to close their minds if you continue to insult them. Your comments here should be based on convincing enough of the other side that your ideas and proposed language is reasonable. Cite sourcing. Cite policy. Be reasonable. Be civil. It saves time.
And you all know every bit of this already. Editors who won't try to get along here and who won't leave should be getting warnings, topic bans and eventually blocks for the good of the encyclopedia.
And if you really wanted to do the best job of working collaboratively with people you disagree with on a contentious subject, actually acknowledge where your own preferred side is weak and where the other side is strongest. You aren't here to advance your political position. You're here to present information to readers. Focus on that, please, and let's get to the job at hand. </sermon> -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- ^ Angwin, Julia; Fowler, Geoffrey A. (November 27, 2009). "Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on October 25, 2017. Retrieved July 28, 2013.(subscription required)
- ^ Simonite, Tom (October 22, 2013). "The Decline of Wikipedia". MIT Technology Review. Archived from the original on June 19, 2015. Retrieved March 26, 2015.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Jemielniakwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Jemielniak, Dariusz (June 22, 2014). "The Unbearable Bureaucracy of Wikipedia". Slate. Archived from the original on July 1, 2014. Retrieved July 1, 2014.