|This user is currently feeling discouraged about Wikipedia and is taking an off-and-on wikibreak due to loss of motivation.
Your help in cheering this user up would be appreciated.
Hello. My name is Danielle, and I mostly try to improve Wikipedia via talk discussions, reverting vandalism, minor changes, and possibly even mass addendums to articles. I try to follow guidelines, but if you think I did something wrong, please let me know via my talk page. I am a reasonable person and will try to see it from your point of view.
Meaning of my username
Tutelary as defined by Google is: serving as a protector, guardian, or patron. So why did I choose it? I often attempt to make Wikipedia a better place by reverting vandalism, participating in discussions, new page patrolling, reporting suspected sockpuppets, and other 'wikignomish' things of that nature. Though I could possibly always fit into the other label of WikiElf if you really put two and two together. Though maybe one day I'll get the confidence to participate in full threaded content contributions, such as promoting articles to GA or FA, but for now I try to mostly be in the background. Kings after all do all of the boring stuff.
||Moderate level of vandalism.
[view • 4.4CVS / 4.0RPM according to DefconBot 18:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Articles I've created
View on gender gap
The demographics don't lie, Wikipedia is primarily edited by male editors, and there is a certain systematic bias that comes along with that. Though it manifests itself in other ways than expected. Surprisingly, social articles are well written (from my POV) particularly those with active wikiprojects. One good natured example is Call of Duty articles will get FA articles while psychology articles who are in desperate need of help haven't been edited for two weeks. I, myself was terrified of Wikipedia when I first signed up, and I thought that any good intentioned edit may warner me an indefinite ban for daring to edit articles. Obviously, that hasn't happened. Though my main observations are this;
- Article content disputes can become personal rather fast, and that's the caveat of the internet, though I do think that the personal attack noticeboard were to have been fixed rather than done away with, that might help.
- It's so complicated. Literally, I was editing a ton when I first started and there was so much I did not know. There needs to be a 'FAQ' or something like that. Maybe I'll create one.
- Although it's one of the pillars, personal attacks need to be dealt with; they're the only one of the guidelines which don't have clear way of enforcement. You are to revert, but what if they revert back? What's the precedance on sanction?
- Reverting in itself has a psychological effect, even on long term editors. Your contributions are being reversed, and that's detrimental to the psyche. The majority of the times, there's good reasons for it, but sometimes, you don't see it as that way.
- Admins are to be accountable for their actions, but rarely they are. WP:BUREAUCRACY is a thing but like the constitution's 4th amendment, it will be avoided for enforcement but glorified as patriotic.
All in all, I think the gender gap is unfortunate and since I am a woman, it affects me personal, but I can see the reasons why it's there in the first place.