Waynestateproject

Welcome!

Hello, Waynestateproject, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

David Horace Clift

I had worked pretty hard to clean up your article on Mr Clift. The version you wrote was not entirely appropriate for an encyclopedia article as the tone was incorrect (for one thing, subjects are generally referred to by their last name, giving a distant professional tone, rather than their first name, which implies a more personal tone inappropriate for an encyclopedia). For another thing, not every detail of Clift's life is significant, and we don't need to quote sources verbatim.

Can you explain why you undid all of the changes I had made? Such a change, without discussion, implies a sense of ownership which is inappopriate. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Issues

I have noted several issues that need to be address in the David Horace Clift article, specifically, that Clift appears to be widely covered in publications of the ALA, of which he was the leader, but nowhere else. This means that he may not be notable under Wikipedia guidelines, and may therefore not be a valid subject for a Wikipedia article. If you can address these issues, by citing sources published by someone other than the ALA that discuss Mr Clift and his career, please do so. If you can not, the article may face deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Clift discussion

I am moving this discussion to your talk page because it does not involve article content, but rather editor behavior. You wrote on Talk:David Horace Clift:

I received a grade for this page in a class. I wanted to be graded for my work, not yours. I should have communicated that from the onset but I mention that on my profile site. I am sorry that I didn't note that earlier. The lack of communication is my fault and I apologize for doing a poor job.

I don't care for what you have done to the piece I wrote up. I liked my sections, I liked that I noted that he served his country twice. He helped America both during WWII and to lead the ALA into the Intellectual Freedom force it is today. I think it is important for people to take note of who David Horace Clift is and what he has done. I think you make him sound bland. I read your profile, I see you're supposed to be good at wikifying material. You do this stuff, I don't. I got my grade, if you as an expert editor think this is the way to go, than I will leave it. However, I don't agree with a few of your assertions and I plan to vocalize it now that I have a few moments.

Although the articles I reference are not completely independent of the ALA, I do not believe that they are dependent on the ALA or their publications. They provide information about a person who served his country and the world in several aspects. There were no outrageous claims made in these articles. If either of these articles had started making claims that seemed to be beyond the scope of a normal persons contributions to freedom in our society, I would want to see those claims substantiated by outside sources. He worked for several libraries, he served his country, and oversaw the American Library Associations expansion into the institution that it is today. Nothing about that information screams outrageous to me. Now on to my next point. I understand the need for complete independent sources for a scholarly essay or writing. I respect and appreciate the need to hold the label of "scholarly," the most educated opinions, to a strict code. Wikipedia is not a scholarly endeavor. I do not care how many scholarly writers you have contributing to the site, as long as you allow for open submission by the general public, it won't be scholarly. This may make me sound elitist but I stand by my view. I am not knocking the importance that Wikipedia has on the public sphere. People can share info about a wide range of topics and different points of view can be heard. In the pursuit of knowledge and information, that is a great advancement. Wikipedia's has an important role in our technological world today, but not as a scholarly endeavor. Schools, specifically colleges, do not and hopefully for as long as I live, will not allow this site to be used as references for research. I am not opposed to the use of Wiki as a pre-research reference, maybe something to direct the student down a certain path. With that said, the bio I wrote on David Horace Clift was meant, other than for a grade, to be a quick reference to a man who has contributed to our society in a positive format. You can claim that his "lack of notoriety" and my lack of using "independent sources" is an issue, but by removing Mr. Clift from Wikipedia, you're only hurting the people who might benefit from having that information as a starting spot in the future. The American Library Association is a major entity in the library and Intellectual Freedom world. Mr. Clift's contribution as Chief Executive is an important note in history to maintain. I am also adding, something I forgot initially, the fact that he was named one of top 100 leaders in the 20th century. (library leaders) The reference for that information is from the journal of American Libraries.

I have an additional comment to you. Your second message scolded me for changing back to my original post despite the work you did and accused me of trying to take "ownership." You expressed frustration, that I undid what you did. Your belief, that your work on the page being better than mine, is you trying to take ownership of the page. I am conceding that ownership now that I have the grade but I just wanted to point out how hypocritical you were for accusing me of taking ownership. Which I was, because I wanted a grade.

I apologize again for not prefacing this page with a comment that this particular format only needed to be temporary until I got the grade. I also apologize for my complete lack of communication up until this point. I acknowledge that communication is important and by not making the time sooner to respond, I committed a major flaw in the submission and participation process. I would like to further note that I do appreciate your effort even if I don't appreciate the outcome.

To conclude, I stand by my opinion of Wikipedia, it's purpose in the public sphere and to the way I presented the material.

--Waynestateproject (talk) 07:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I noted when this article was created that it was created as part of a university project (Wikipedia:School and university projects/WSU SLIS Library Leaders/), and that project's leader (Scoutcalvert (talk · contribs)) appears to be aware of the proper uses of Wikipedia in school and university projects. Unfortunately, you do not appear to be aware of these proper uses. If you want to receive a grade for your work on Wikipedia, keep the article in your user space. Once the article is in the main space, it is available for all editors to improve; you no longer own it.

All articles on Wikipedia must meet Wikipedia guidelines for tone, content, formatting, etc. I did not take ownership of the article, I had used specific Wikipedia manual of style guidelines to rewrite the article in a tone that was more appropriate for a general encyclopedia. The original tone of the article was laudatory, praising Clift for service to his country as a soldier and as a librarian. While Clift may well be deserving of such praise, Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view, and such praise has no place in a Wikipedia article.

You appear to have a great deal of opinion about what you think Wikipedia should be. However, that opinion does not coincide with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you don't like these policies and guidelines, you are free to take up the issues at the appropriate venues (you could start at the Village Pump). Or you are free to take your writing elsewhere. However, if you are going to contribute to Wikipedia, you must do so in accordance with the guidelines that exist.

As it stands, the Clift article is not in immediate danger of being deleted. However, as I noted above, without further sources, that is not beyond the realm of possibility. Personally, I think Clift was probably a pretty important guy (which is why I spent so much of my time working on the article). I hope that further sources can be found to back that up. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)