Jump to content

User talk:Adpete: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Wikipedia: Don't forget the poor!
Line 26: Line 26:
:::Indeed, I can attest to the benefits of editing in low traffic areas - I edit heavily on WA topics where I'm often the only editor, although I've been able to solicit neutral reviews of my work where necessary. It'd be a shame to lose you to the void, and I wish you the best. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 07:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Indeed, I can attest to the benefits of editing in low traffic areas - I edit heavily on WA topics where I'm often the only editor, although I've been able to solicit neutral reviews of my work where necessary. It'd be a shame to lose you to the void, and I wish you the best. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 07:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
:::If you want a real break, go edit [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]] instead of WP for a while :-) --[[User:Surturz|Surturz]] ([[User talk:Surturz|talk]]) 10:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
:::If you want a real break, go edit [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]] instead of WP for a while :-) --[[User:Surturz|Surturz]] ([[User talk:Surturz|talk]]) 10:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
:Hey Peter, of course I understand your frustration and even share your feelings. But-- with all respect for what you have gone through, please have in mind that we, Wikipedia readers in the Third World have verbally no local access to relevant print media and/or no funds to order them from abroad . I am a professor of cultural history at a Ukrainian university in Odessa. My students are actually depending on the Internet and encyclopedic sources like Wikipedia, Wikibook, Wikiversity, and others. Sometimes I ask myself why we have to live from these huge mountains of ecclectic or low-quality material - kind of like the poor on the garbage hills of Cairo. But then I have to realize that we have no other choice and we become thankful again... [[Special:Contributions/91.90.15.48|91.90.15.48]] ([[User talk:91.90.15.48|talk]]) 14:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:10, 27 February 2009

/Archive 1 (Dec 05 to Jun 07)

/Archive 2 (Jul 07 to Jun 08)

/Archive 3 (Jul 08 to Feb 09)

I've had enough

I've deleted my entire watchlist and I'm having a break. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've come to the conclusion that, while it is a really good resource, Wikipedia will never be more than an indiscriminate collection of information, contrary to its stated aim (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). There are too many editors with agendas (both deliberate and unconscious). There are too many editors putting in random irrelevant (or incorrect) factoids.

The people who concluded that Wikipedia was as accurate as Britannica[1] must have been on drugs.

I've tried to work on fixing these things and improving Wikipedia, but the tide is too great. It's a lost cause. I've got better things to do with my time. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC) (Moved from User page to here, 01:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia

What's happened to make you feel such a way? Was it any pages in particular? What pushed you over the line? It's a real shame that Wikipedia appears to have lost yet another good SA editor. Timeshift (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What pushed me over the line was about 5 different pages over a few days, under quite different topics. (I did actually cross swords with you at Talk:John Howard recently, but that one bothered me the least because there I think we've got well meaning editors with very different pespectives). There was a common theme: I was trying to improve pages, and my efforts were either in vain (changes reverted, talk page suggestions ignored), or it took (or is taking) enormous effort to get any changes through. I've taken a step back and decided: why bother, it's too hard, my time's not worth it. I've resigned myself to the fact that Wikipedia (like the Internet in general) can only ever be an error-riddled resource, and given up trying to help improve it. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from, it's partly the reason why i've retreated to the nice and quiet tranquility of SA politics pages these days. There's still much room for improvement on Premier's pages if you ever feel the need to scratch a wikipedia itch at some point in the future. Timeshift (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I may return to quietly adding stuff once I've calmed down. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I can attest to the benefits of editing in low traffic areas - I edit heavily on WA topics where I'm often the only editor, although I've been able to solicit neutral reviews of my work where necessary. It'd be a shame to lose you to the void, and I wish you the best. Orderinchaos 07:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a real break, go edit Encyclopedia Dramatica instead of WP for a while :-) --Surturz (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Peter, of course I understand your frustration and even share your feelings. But-- with all respect for what you have gone through, please have in mind that we, Wikipedia readers in the Third World have verbally no local access to relevant print media and/or no funds to order them from abroad . I am a professor of cultural history at a Ukrainian university in Odessa. My students are actually depending on the Internet and encyclopedic sources like Wikipedia, Wikibook, Wikiversity, and others. Sometimes I ask myself why we have to live from these huge mountains of ecclectic or low-quality material - kind of like the poor on the garbage hills of Cairo. But then I have to realize that we have no other choice and we become thankful again... 91.90.15.48 (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]