Hello there! My user page was very grouchy for a long time, so I've decided to make it a little less grouchy.
I still am too lazy for userboxes, so nothing here but plain text and us chickens, thank you. I finally added a Userbox in a show of solidarity inspired by an MfD discussion I find highly offensive, and from there I just decided to start creating more.
I love Wikipedia for two reasons: I am extremely pedantic, and I enjoy the exercise of creating consensus. Unfortunately, I am also lazy so my mainspace contributions are somewhat weak. I'm usually not willing to spend the time to research a topic enough to meaningfully add to an article. But I contribute extensively in fighting vandalism and correcting obvious errors. Also, I hate spam with a passion.
Inclusionist vs. Deletionist
When I first started editing Wikipedia, I was staunchly Inclusionist. I am beginning to change my mind.
The problem is one of incentive and deterrence. In theory, I don't have a problem with Wikipedia being a nigh indiscriminate collection of information, sort of an "omnipendium" rather than an encyclopedia, with the caveat that articles be tagged appropriately if they are unreferenced or unencyclopedic or what have you. Just because a particular novel, for example, is not notable, that doesn't mean it isn't useful to have its existence recorded for posterity, along with a little background information, etc. And the Wiki model means that this knowledge can be accumulated and vetted in a stunningly effective way.
But the problem becomes one of the types of folks most likely to add fringe content -- namely, spammers and people who got lost on the way to MySpace. In theory, for example, I have no problem with there being a Wikipedia page about an obscure band that only played a few shows. Hey, who knows when that info might be handy? But I do have a problem with someone using Wikipedia like a MySpace page to promote their band, announce shows, hawk their CDs, etc. And once you open the door to the former, it's hard to keep it closed to the latter.
I often see content getting deleted on Wikipedia that I am sad to see go. But if we weren't so heavy-handed, it would create an incentive for all sorts of spammers and shysters and fanboys (and fangirls) and what have you to run wild. So, the current deletion process, while occasionally frustrating, creates a significant deterrent to these abusers, and I Think I'm Okay With That (TM).
Essays I'd like to write someday
At time of writing, these are all redlinks, but may turn to bluelinks if I get around to it.
- WP:I think you got lost on the way to MySpace
- User:Jaysweet/The most telling sign that you have WP:OWN issues is that you think everybody else has WP:OWN issues
- User:Jaysweet/You are probably not being Wikistalked
This is a Barnstar-Free Zone
Here's my beef with barnstars: Because anybody can give one to anybody else at any time for any reason, they are pretty meaningless. Actually, in a way they are less than meaningless... You see, far too often, I see someone who is an extreme pov pusher and (excuse the language) a complete and total asshole -- but because their extreme pov happens to be a popular one, or because they have other pov warrior buddies, they have barnstars all over their user pages. So to me, a barnstar maybe means that you work hard on contributing to the encyclopedia, or maybe it means that you have worked tirelessly to promote the Flat Earth theory or some other bullshit fringe theory on Wikipedia, and all the other nutsos that subscribe to that crap worship you for it. No thanks, not for me. If you like something I did, leave a note on my talk page. But no barnstars, please.
I was so touched by this note from Moonriddengirl that I wanted to preserve it for posterity:
- Not a Barnstar
- In deference to your request. :) I did want to note, though, that even if I have never been personally involved (that I remember) with WP:WQA, I value the work I've noticed you doing there and appreciate that you take time to do it. You seem to be good at speaking straightforwardly but neutrally to the heart of the issue. So, kudos! No barnstars for you! :) (I understand your point with regards to Barnstars. Generally, I'm for them; I've gotten some that mean quite a lot to me, but also some that...don't. I've also seen them handed out for abysmal reasons. So, still, no barnstar for you. But peer approval nevertheless. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Article-building I've done
- Was pointed to Steve Fairchild, which was not only in a shambles but was 95% copyvio. Fleshed out with multiple sources, Wikified, and in a nice coherent sectionified form.
Stars are out, so how about gnomes? :) User:MariahSweet
Random Smiley Award
Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward