This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
This flies in the face of everything said elsewhere.
I'm sorry, but this is the most confusing "WP:" page yet. Elsewhere: "use discussion", here: "be bold", elsewhere "achieve consensus", here: "go for it", elsewhere it's emphasized that collaboration improves the quality of the wikipedia and here it's emphasized that a better wikipedia is achieved by people just making changes and not being surprised when they're reverted.
You have GOT to be kidding. Seriously, take your meds people. Wikipedia is laughed at enough already.Tgm1024 (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Did you really understand the second paragraph of the opening section? It doesn't seem like it. Thousands and thousands of undiscussed edits are made every day without being reverted. That's what being bold is. --NeilNtalk to me 14:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I can read what was written, and as it stands, this being bold nonsense is precisely what is frowned upon everywhere at wikipedia. Heck, I might mention this in the article body. And then have it reverted. What a consistent theme here.Tgm1024 (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, probably you had bad experience. You may have run into WP:OWNed article or tried to edit a policy page, where any non-discussed change is frowned upon for a reason. But otherwise WP:BOLD works pretty well, if one does not forget that being bold does not exclude that you may be wrong. Anyway, we may continue this pointless "yes it is / no it is not" for a long time. Which exactly specific case you have in mind? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
This user has a VERY valid point. Jim Wales founded Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia, to which anyone could add well-founded information, in order to further human knowledge. Yet though the website was founded on this simple principle, Wikipedia has fallen short of this objective. I too am new to Wikipedia, and I have expert knowledge on the legend of Robin Hood, amassed through studying a two-year postgraduate Masters research degree at the University of Leeds. Yet my attempts to provide information on this theme to Wikipedia have consistently been reedited by administrators, whom, I can only conclude, have a God complex. It has been my regular experience to find small groups of editors sitting in control of articles, reverting all changes, and replying dismissively, even rudely, to "outside" proposals for change. When asked on what authority deletions or reversions are made, a small group of editors appear, identified not by a general review system that would provide broad, unbiased comment, but rather, seemingly, by private communication between editors. After this, the change is denied because of a lack of consensus. Group size for this consensus decision has at times has been as small as 2-3. Wikipedia currently employs 1408 volunteer administrators, has 76, 000 active contributors and 21,821,300 global users. Yet, repeatedly, it is the same few administrators who feel the need to admonish me and alter my publications. Despite having repeatedly tried to amend the issues that have been raised by administrators, there has not been anything near to what one might call a just or professional adjudication of a disputed matter. Sadly, these negative situations have taken over in shaping my impression of Wikipedia, and lead me to say, I am at a loss. In consequence, Wikipedia’s leadership can say what it likes, externally. But in my experience, and despite its founding principles, Wikipedia is not truly the fundamentally egalitarian organisation it likes to depict itself as being. Instead, at its core resides a patchwork of editors with personal interests and agendas, many of whom band together as need be to function in a control-conscious manner. Just as important, at that level and steadily progressing higher in the organization, there seem to be few paths for constructive oversight/review or for real systematic change. To coin a phrase, it is simply the case that all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others, and the farm is doing just fine as it is, thank you. So while those in charge seem to have a view of the organization largely constructed by its more equal participants, I regret to say that this is simply not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siggasonswein (talk • contribs)
@Siggasonswein: Spamming irrelevant self-promotion like this throughout a swath of articles is going to get reverted. Simple as that. --NeilNtalk to me 21:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN: How rude. This is an obvious well-meaning newcomer, frustrated with non-acceptance. I am sure they can pass their knowledge without problems with WP:COI, after gaining some experience. This is not like some snake oil peddler or fringe theory kookery. Give a guy a chance without biting. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Staszek Lem: Before jumping to conclusions, take a look at the history of his talk page (including what they've deleted). --NeilNtalk to me 23:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN:<sigh> this is a typical reaction of a fresh PhD who thinks (may be justly) that he knows it all in his small area of research, didn't take part in any real fight among polarized academics, and thinks that wikipedians are the worst :-). However I believe he starts learning the ropes. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Staszek Lem: Not a PhD (unless I'm missing something) but a Masters. Less scrutiny for the thesis, I believe? --NeilNtalk to me 00:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@Siggasonswein:There is no cabal. Rather than whining you may want to ask politely what exactly was wrong with your contributions. Most people in wikipedia may seem rude at their first reaction, simply because they have no time, and the %% of vandals and other drive-by editors is surprisingly large and annoying. However if you engage them in a discussion and demonstrate your good will, you will be surprized with the level of collegiality. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)