User:Carolmooredc: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:17, 10 December 2013

This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carolmooredc.

About me

This user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years, 4 months and 21 days.

27,000+

This user has made more than 27,000 contributions to Wikipedia.

Current number- # edits list

This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

Q

This user used to have access to Questia through The Wikipedia Library.

H

This user had access to HighBeam through The Wikipedia Library.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Feminism.

This user is a member of WikiProject Libertarianism.

السلام-שלום

This user participates in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.

This user is against vandalism, undue criticism and defamation in biographies of the living—or the dead—per NPOV.

User:December21st2012Freak/Wikipedia is doomed

60+

This user is a sexagenarian.

ENTJ

This user's MBTI type is ENTJ.

This user is bold, but not reckless, in updating pages.

This editor is a
**Senior Editor**
and is entitled to display this Rhodium
Editor Star.

I've been feeling like Wikipedia just can't deal with the really problematic editors any more, from fanatical POV pushing to even wikihounding and harassment. (Long lists of solid diffs proving various policy violations can be discredited by hysterical counter-charges with nary a diff!) This is aggravated by the fact that so many editors are anonymous and too many never "get" the principle that presenting a neutral, balanced and credible project is more important than pushing a POV or just getting their way in an argument. And the double standard sexism is just totally out of control.

How to Reform Wikipedia

Keep beefing up Help resources, including with dramatic and amusing videos, and even video games, as well as recruit and support mentors.
Editors have to use Dispute resolution processes more expertly and review them more often. (Note to self.) Need to beef up in "Wikipedia:Noticeboards" to teach people to write effective notices, especially for WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents that succinctly link to the most problematic behavior and editing in such a way Admins can easily deal with the issue, bringing the least flack down upon themselves.
Hire a couple hundred part-time admins to deal with problematic behavior and chronic policy violators, especially regarding Biographies of Living Persons. (There must be some way around the alleged legal problems with the Foundation paying for it! And let's make them half women, if we really want more women editors.)

Take POV editing more seriously, especially by editors who chronically add only negative material in a certain topic area because it supports their POV and thus create conflict and disruption.
Have admins more freely recommend mentoring or Wikibreaks, or more frequently impose more short blocks to give editors time to consider their problematic editing.
Give out "Worst Edit" awards each week for most originally researched, poorly sourced, biased/absurd/ridiculous edits. (Only mention edits by Anon IPs or editors with at least 1000 edits, sharing only diffs and quotes.)

Running list to be continued...

Let's clean up Wikipedia's act! Partisan tugs of war are better played outside Wikipedia!

And millions of new editors worldwide!

**A model for Wikipedian collaboration**

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 {{User unified login}}
 <br>
-''I would like to pull back from most of the high conflict articles I've edited over the years, but BLP issues especially keep dragging me back in.  I've been feeling like Wikipedia just can't deal with the really problematic editors any more, from fanatical POV pushing to even wikihounding and harassment. (Long lists of solid diffs proving various policy violations can be discredited by hysterical counter-charges with nary a diff!) This is aggravated by the fact that so many editors are anonymous and too many never ''"get"'' the principle that presenting a neutral, balanced and credible project is more important than pushing a POV or just getting their way in an argument. We'll see what happens.''
+''I've been feeling like Wikipedia just can't deal with the really problematic editors any more, from fanatical POV pushing to even wikihounding and harassment. (Long lists of solid diffs proving various policy violations can be discredited by hysterical counter-charges with nary a diff!) This is aggravated by the fact that so many editors are anonymous and too many never ''"get"'' the principle that presenting a neutral, balanced and credible project is more important than pushing a POV or just getting their way in an argument. And the double standard sexism is just totally out of control.''
 -----
 <big><center>'''How to Reform Wikipedia'''</center></big>