Wikipedia talk:Light one candle

Reaction

• I don't think there is anything "new" here not contained in other essays. I also feel it is a discussion of "How things are." not "How one should act." Don't see much point to this, myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoxSexSax (talk • contribs) 11:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• I came here from the talk page of No Angry Mastadons. I think this is a useful essay but I am not entirely comfortable with the definition of expert. I think you need to touch on WP:OWN and also that expert has a common meaning which I think has been extended here and I don't think that extension has concensus. Just a first reaction. Regards --Golden Wattle ^talk 19:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Nobody is (here) proposing that WP:OWN be changed (although that has been floated elsewhere). This page is intended as a guideline for expert users who come to the project, decide they don't like it, and leave...it isn't policy at all. --EngineerScotty 20:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I fully appreciate that this is not policy, but I think this essay should refer to OWN. I think also that the use of expert beyond its common meaning is difficult, but I am not sure what to substitute. I query to that the Wikipedia community would generally agree with the extended definition. I am not sure if I was an expert (in the ordinary sense) I would be reassured by this essay. My two cents --Golden Wattle ^talk 20:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a very good point. I've been thinking about how to work WP:OWN into the essay and am glad to see that the same thought occurs to another user. I'll do my best, and please contribute if you find ways to make it better. Regards, Durova 23:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The general tenor seems to be "advice to frustrated self-identified experts", and as such I'm not sure it even needs an definition of "expert"; it just needs to be useful advice to those experiencing said frustrations. (Perhaps we should move this to Wikipedia:So, you think you're an expert, eh....) I agree it needs a stronger caveat about ownership issues; the existing link seems to somewhat miss the point, in effect implying it's OK to "own" an article, so as it's a high-quality "owned" article. (Which is nice for the article, but still potentially problematic as a user behaviour issue.) Alai 02:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia Good Articles have almost no quality standards whatsoever, imo. I've been watching a batch created by one editor with incorrect botany, gross errors in nomenclature usage, contradictory statements, poorly referenced statements, and obvious misreadings of technical papers (although considering the limited understand of botanical nomenclature this last could be expected). And this editor actively seeks GA status, and gets it on horrid articles--an attacks me when I ask the article to be cleaned up. Contributing 10 false, or incomprehensible lines to an article does not make anyone an expert. I've contributed no lines to the Sei Whale article and have no doubt that I'm an expert compared to many who've worked on whale articles on Wikipedia, although they all write better articles for a general audience than I do, are superb and dedicated editors, and contribute to an area of excellence on Wikipedia. Frankly, I'd rather have more of the dedicated Cetacean editors and fewer experts writing articles if the caliber of articles the whale folks have is the result, they're smart, they can read, they can defend their viewpoints and work with others to improve the articles--with experience the dedicated amateurs will become more knowledgable, they're aware of their limitations, and they're better able to work with others towards Wikipedia's common goal, imo, than most experts would be. Still, I think the definition of expert in this essay is problematic--10 good lines to a GA doesn't make you an expert.

One issue I think you ignore: in academia, among experts, people are used to having their ideas critiqued, taken down, ripped apart from all angles. I expect my colleagues to do this to my arguments, to my papers, to my presentations, if they don't, the whole scientific community will. However, often on Wikipedia, asking a question leads to hostility. Why did you change A to B gets angry responses like, "I don't like the tone of your question," "it's from a scholarly source." What, if you quote a scholar out of context, it's legite because it's a scholarly source? Academic experts don't worship each other, respect is earned, and must be maintained. No science is static and unopen to being questioned. It's not all about the expert's expectations, also it's also about Wikipedia editors who consider that anyone who asks them why they said something in an article is challenging their humanity. I'm not an expert on anything, by the way. KP Botany 00:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Proverb

Apparently, this page contains misinformation, and "It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness" really came from a sermon by W. L. Watkinson in 1907 rather than being a Chinese proverb as popularly claimed. But I'm not sure yet. Quadibloc (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)