User talk:AKIRA70
|
Lady Aleena's crossover page
Thank you for stopping by and reading the article in progress in my user space regarding television crossovers. I am glad that you like it, though it is currently stalled due to lack of support for it through the lack of other editors making it suitable for article space. I fear that it will never be ready. Have a nice day! - LA @ 06:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Request for copyediting assistance
Hi. Would you be interested in copyediting the article Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song? I am interested in getting this article listed as a GA and eventual FA, but aside from a few sections ("Music," "Editing," "Response" and "Legacy"), the article doesn't look all that great. I am open to any suggestions as to what kind of info can be moved from other areas of the article into the sections that are lacking. (Ibaranoff24 (talk))
Can Wikipedia Change?
- Can wikipedia Change? Should Wikipedia Change? All those who want to have this discussion I think it should be held here.--AKIRA70 (talk) 05:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Also: Constructive ideas and opinions can be expressed here. Any-hey, if this breaks Wiki rules just tell me and I'll remove this topic without question.BTzJM--AKIRA70 (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Smells like troll bait, but never mind.
Can wikipedia Change? Err No. Well not unless the underlying rules(code) changes and no I cant think of any useful changes. And it will change at a no faster rate than a culture normally changes ,cos thats what it is. There are enough editors that we have statistical sample of humans. All the usual turf wars and ownership beefs about nothing much, float to the top, just like they do in school councils, sporting club committees, blah, blah. As happened on the BS page, those who feel they own a right to do stuff, exercise that right and see no need or purpose in responding to or discussing or justifying anything. Thats how it was, that will be how it is, and that will be how it will be. It, wikipedia, human experiment, this is the outcome. In an environment like Wards wiki was, the population was not selected from average humans but from a very select subset of humans, that experiment had a different outcome. While it could be argued that a culture(meme) will evolve over time, the constant stream of newbs, retards that. There is an interesting phenomena in Australia. There is a road across the Nullabor. It takes > 24hrs to drive it with no real option to turn off and go any other way. AFAIK a meme lives on that road. Most drivers wave to drivers coming the other way, like you know them. As you drive into the area you feel weird as all these strange people wave at you, after a while you do it and for about 5 hours its really nice, then you sleep the night somewhere and the next mornign for about 5 more hours its nice again. Then as you approach the far side drivers are new to it(as they are coming in from the other end) they dont wave. After a while you feel silly waving and stop. You finally completely stop about when you get to an area where a significant number of locals are driving around waving to no one. This waving meme lived(maybe it still does?) not in specific people but as ephemeral contagion in whichever people were driving across the Nullabor that day. IF you really want to change wikipedia for the better what you need to do is maximise the rate at which good memes are transferred from the old wikipedians to the newbs. The mdiation cabal is one such idea, as are various groups that preserve localised voices of reason. aka groups that beautify pages, or fix prose. Each of these forms micro communties that are hopefulyl self sustaining due to s ense of belonging, which many humans crave, and most importantly as these groups postively interact with other wikipedians they spread the memes. Unfortunately it will be like shivelling shit uphill in a rainstorm, as I suspect there is a constant stream of newbs and self improtant people with chips on their shoulders wandering through the in door. Edit wars propogate bad wiki memes and drag in new peopel to become embittered.
As an example of the current(last time I looked) wikipedia is meant to have (amoungst other things) a culture of 'assume good faith'. That only goes so far and I have seen plenty of editors who have got their backs up and just cannot let it go and look for the middle ground. Despite assume good faith being a brilliant idea(meme), and it was alive and well on Wards wiki, it was not so apparent when I experienced wikipedia. It was also not apparent when I examined other peoples disputes. This is how it was. it is how it will still be, and how it will be tomorrow. Lots of isms are good ideas, pacifism, communism, captilaism, these are all experiments that have been run, all of them can now be seen in hindsight to have had certain shortcomings. (mainly tragedies of the commons) Wikiism also has certain shortcomings.
Should wikipedia change? Of course it should, but how would it? It would be changed by changing the nature of or at least the culture of the humans from which wikipedias culture has emerged. If such a change could be made to the human species such that wikipedia worked more like its rules says it does, then the human species in my view would be much improved. If wishes were fishes wed never go hungary. If god grants you the wisdom to never ever confuse would should and could, then your life will be much happier.
- Yes, that is true but as I said before, I ask can it change. I deliberately made such an abstract question to imply any and/or all possibilities that may pertain to the the concept of can(meaning having the ability to in any way) and change (to either a small or large degree). That being said, it is not out of some sort of confusion of "would, should or could" that I have ask the question, although giving this I should have been clearer with my issue. The truth is I am very mindful of the fact that placed with the various issues that were brought up here, it can be highly unlikely if not near impossible for wiki to change; there still lies the very subtle truth that it still can (could, should, and would) change. That fact is that wiki can be better, and be improve toward that end. That fact that you bring up the concepts of could, should, or would- and the examples of such in the response shows that there is a mindset for changing it, just not an efficient means of implementing it. Secondly, I think despite it being connected to human culture, I would contend that to equate wikipedia's ability to change to human natures inability is far too grandiose of a idea; not wrong just too great of a leap. That fact is that despite many draw backs wiki has in its infrastructure (user/visitor conflicts; veterans/newbs perspectives; edit wars and vandalism; and the rules that both inhibit wiki's growth and helping to keep order) there can always be room for change, even if human culture (at large- in a macro view) cannot. And as to the happier life from not confusing could, should, or would the god should grant me; or rather the unhappiness that you alluded to, only comes from knowing all too well that (and using your equation)wiki/human culture/society could, would, and should change, and then, seeing how it doesn't due to the internal conflicts, the constant disputes and the great tendency for people to allow their personal BS to get in the way of reporting and making available truthful information on this site. Simply, it is because of knowing the definitions, the concepts, and the connotations of could, should, and would very well that I have ask this question and had the wisdom to put it on my own page for discussion, instead of being like a lot of wiki users and just simply put it mindlessly on an article and or discussion page, to prove some point. BTzJM--AKIRA70 (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, I hope we can talk again on this issue or others---AKIRA70 (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you help?
I see you were listed as a participant in the League of Copy-Editors so it seems likely. The thing is the Military history wikiproject urgently needs prose pros to help with our best articles. In Milhist, A-Class has become the last port of call before FAC and we are looking for people to help identify prose and MoS issues at A-Class A-Class Reviews and help fix them prior to featured article candidacy. We also have a copy-editing section in our Logistics Dept and that can always use experienced copy-editors. For most of our articles, you don't need to be a specialist in the subject matter, just good with words.
If you think you can help, please do! Thanks for your time, --ROGER DAVIES talk 03:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
'Fraid Not
No, sorry, I don't particularly like either of those groups. I'm also not too keen on getting involved in wikipedia politics, so I'll have to decline your kind offer. :) Good luck in your endeavours, though, and thank you for considering me none the less. (Tsukiakari (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC))
What About THIS?!
- DO you think Wikipedia Should have a proper forum for its users?--AKIRA70 (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Request for copyediting
Hello. I see you were a member of the League of Copyeditors... An article I nominated at WP:FAC, Candide, is receiving some criticism for its prose, and I'm looking for a thorough copyediting... Would you mind looking at Candide? Thanks! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)