User:Protonk

Reload

I've followed the project for a few years, editing under different IP's since approximately 2004. In 2006 I established a few private wikis using mediawiki so I have some idea of the substantial investment of time the backend of this project represents. I came to be a user because of ED, where I was DETERMINED to throw a wrench into the evil workings of the cabal. I was going to be a mole, getting a username, autoconfirming, making a bunch of good edits. then I was really going to show them what for. In retrospect it was pretty silly. I would have done what before I got banned? Muss up a few math pages? Insert the word "poop" into a few poorly maintained stubs? But when I got here I found out the place wasn't filled (well, not to the brim) with jerks. Articles needed improving. People discussed things passionately. It seemed like a nice place to be.

wiki-2This user is an intermediate Wikipedia editor. FU This user supports the use of fair use images on Wikipedia. inclThis user is an inclusionist. This user rescues articles for the Article Rescue Squadron.

Those were my userboxes. I felt that Wikipedia was being torn up by forces on the inside. Insidious forces who only wanted things like Napoleon and the Whiskey Rebellion on wikipedia. Didn't they know that information wanted to be free? That paper was dead (p.s. long live paper)? I dived into AfD and basically edited articles (on this account) so I might not be labeled an SPA. I was filled with fire, insisting that the merest mention was significant and deletion was a sign of a process gone awry, not a process itself.

I haven't had a coming to the River Jordan moment, but it seems my pattern has changed. I tend to endorse deletion of an article up for afd about 75% of the time. I still think of myself as an inclusionist (really), but I feel that the battle for inclusion need only sometimes be fought at afd. 99% of wikipedia articles lead their lives unmolested by deletion notices and unimproved by editors outside a small group. If an article is about an uncontroversial subject, makes unambitious claims and provides (relatively) unimpeachable sources, it will never be touched. For most articles with sources, this is the arc they take.

For articles without sources or articles whose sources don't verify the claims the result is much the same. To date, there are articles with unsourced statements. This does not include articles which have yet to be tagged. To keep this in perspective, there are Good Articles.

SO??

I'm not the first person to point this out. People have been bemoaning the crappiness of everything as long as there have been things. This is partially because people like to whinge but also because "Ninety percent of everything is crap". I'm not pointing out this in order to exhort your to action. I'm not doing it in order to justify deleting stuff. I'm also not invoking T. Sturgeon to imply that the current state of things is a state of nature. I mean to say that improvement to the project is incremental and piecemeal by design and by definition. I rescue occasional articles from deletion. This does not mean I need to rescue an article I personally feel is meritless from deletion. I don't say that because I think that my judgment of what does and does not have merit is more important than yours (just for one example). I say it because I wouldn't WANT to rescue an article on something that doesn't interest me. Articles deserve the extra mile. Sources should be understood for context rather than mentions. Statements should be sourced, proofed and vetted by common sense. If I can't do that, I don't want to save it. Those aren't guidelines for others, those are my feelings.

How does that relate to being what might seem to be a closet deletionist? Easy. I make the trivial assumption that others have preferences, too. Those preferences will manifest themselves in myriad ways. Outside of those sets of preferences, editors will have to be cajoled into contributing in any significant form. Since we can't contact and compel action from all users, the best gauge of editor preference is a poll--in this case, centralized discussion. If a page doesn't violate policy but doesn't find a consensus of editor support even at this centralized location under heavy pressure, it is my opinion that the page will languish. The debate doesn't always come down to this. Sometimes there are angry discussions about sourcing, the 'exact' meaning of "trivial", or individual interpretation of policy. This is unavoidable. None of us has a consensus view. We are all thrust into this world, very much alone. I approach the words "A topic is presumed to be sufficiently notable to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below, or if it meets an accepted subject-specific standard listed in the table at the right" with a different perspective than you.

But what we forget, self-aware as we are of our civility, that these processes are (as are any bureaucratic policies) inherently frightening and disenfranchising for outsiders and newbies. Vested in knowledge of the system are the keys to compulsory power over others. So, in my opinion, the process should represent honest appeal to reason and evidence. It should grant the benefit of the doubt wherever an article's novelty may explain its condition. It should not be the venue for a crusade.

Enough about me, what about you?

Information

Projects, links and userboxes

Project Membership

This user is a member of the Business WikiProject.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Economics.

This user is a member of WikiProject Ships.

This user participates in
WikiProject Cryptography.

Editing help

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion

Citation_templates

Wikipedia:WikiProject

Wikipedia:NAC

Cleanup Templates

Userboxes

When I feel like it

Barnstars

When YOU feel like it.

Pages

Created and Stable

One Wisconsin Now, Patrick Tyler

To do

(future)

Mesoeconomics

United_States_Naval_reactor

Nuclear_power

Non-bank_financial_institution

(current)

Mathematical_economics

Los_Angeles_class_submarine

USS_Key_West_(SSN-722)

Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce

Alvin E. Roth

Long Term Capital Management

Rescued

• Transcluded from User:Protonk/Rescued

List of unstable rescued pages

Nerf (computer gaming)

Dragon kill points Back from the dead!

List of stable rescued pages

Alchemy Systems with the help of Eastmain.

John Emilius Fauquier

Bloody Sunday (1969)

Wowhead

WoWWiki

Pages I rewrote but didn't really rescue

Vintage Sports-Car Club

Rules lawyer

Encounters with the Archdruid