From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.
WikiWed.jpg This user is married to Mariah, a fellow Wikipedian.
ath This user is an atheist.
MS This user has a Master of Science degree in Computer Engineering.
Guitar Epiphone 01.jpg This user plays the guitar.
Wikignome crop.gif This editor is a WikiGnome.
ex This user regrets that he can be inclined to pedantry

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[edit]

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[edit]

At time of writing, these are all redlinks, but may turn to bluelinks if I get around to it.

This is a Barnstar-Free Zone[edit]

Barn star free zone.png

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.

And yet...[edit]

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)

Oh yeah? well i'm very proud of ya! KatoABJV (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Article-building I've done[edit]

  • 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.

WikiGnome Award[edit]

How about this [WikiGnome] instead?

Stars are out, so how about gnomes? :) User:MariahSweet

Random Smiley Award[edit]

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

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

--Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 20:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)