I mostly upload pictures, and if I feel like it I'll put in a few words here and there in articles. Wikipedia has rules, sometimes they're more like suggestions. I've gotten tired of arguing with people about why an image gets deleted, but you can find 10 others uploaded at the same time of the same type that aren't tagged and that don't get fixed. Whatever, I uploaded the image, you guys figure it out. I'm done arguing with people, if you can take the time to tag it, take the time to fix it! You obviously know it's wrong, can't you go the extra step and fix it? Half-assed seems to be ok now around here. So whatever, here's my upload, looks ok to me, but what do I know? Yeah, probably should be fixed, I'll let someone else do it.
Example: File:Yogi_Bear_with_%22don%27t_feed_the_bears%22_message_-_NARA_-_286013.tif This is a derivative work of a copyrighted character. I tagged it as such, and it was decided to leave it, as it was done by NARA and can be left. Um, if I post a picture of Yogi Bear under a free licesne, it gets tagged for deletion as a copyvio. But because this was done by the government, it's ok...  This was posted in 2012, and the image is still here. Why? It was decided that because the government took the image, it's ok to use it. Whatever...
I'm not anti-Wiki. The idea of a "Wikipedia" is great and I love using it. The behind-the-scenes crap that goes on annoys the hell out of me and I'll avoid it as much as I can. In theory, it's great; in practice, not so much. See below for a list of my frustrations.
Oh, I'm now part of a complete breakfast. I'm GRRRRRREEEAAAT!
|The Original Barnstar|
|This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.|
I live just north of Toronto, Canada.
I was unable to vote on the GFDL/CC-by transition licensing problem even though I was elegible. I brought up the problem in a forum, and was basically told I had to ask elsewhere. I asked elsewhere, and no reply. The vote was giving me an error, and no one could explain it, or wanted to tell me where to go to get answers... Oh, I found the answer recently, via Google. Only three users have reported the error, some scripting problem they didn't think was easy to replicate so they couldn't fix it. That's fine, but does no one have the decency to email the three users to explain it to them so they're not left hanging in the wind?
I contribute articles or media, and some get deleted. I ask for an explanation and you get a two line response from the moderator that did it, or you get a stupid bot that deletes it, and can't explain to you why it was done. You send the moderator a note with about 3 questions, hoping to understand why, and he comes back with a one word answer. I give up, I've moved onto better wikis, where people actually take the time to explain things and make you feel welcome. I don't know what Wikipedia's problem is, but no one wants to take the time to do things properly around here. Oops, we're deleting your article; you ask why so you can improve yourself next time and they come back with a one word answer if you're lucky.
Thanks a bunch guys.
I also contribute an image, and it's tagged as a derivative work and deleted. Yet I look elsewhere and I can find so many more examples of "derivative works" that are kept as they enhance the article... It's either all yes or all no, can't have it both ways. I wish Wikipedia was run by a board that could establish a fixed set of "rules" that could be applied across the board, same for everyone.
Then the overzealous editors that don't even look at a link before removing it... This place is getting annoying. For sure this is the Cathedral, not the Bazaar. Adhere to the will of the Almighty, we work as one, sharing the same goals. If your image gets tagged as a copyvio, no one explains why it's so, or the discussion hangs around for months with no resolution; you obviously know it's wrong when you tag it, fix it for pete's sake!
SOPA and blanking Wikipedia
Now Wikipedia wants to blank pages for a day in protest of an American law that will allow Congress to shut down websites arbitrarily. Why are we even considering this? Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and we are not to get involved in politics of any particular country. I understand that it's hosted in the US, but that's a moot point. The entire wiki can be reproduced under a CC license, so what's the problem. If it gets blanked, just get someone else to host it. We have laws in Canada that will also affect how webpages get used, and our copyright law is being changed to more closely mirror the American one. Yet no one cares about this. Can you honestly see Wikipedia do a global blackout for some hypothetical Canadian law that would affect it? No, of course not. Let the Americans do whatever they want, we are not to get involved in foreign affairs. We are an encyclopedia, not a political/lobbying group. This is not the place to discuss things that don't please us.
You want to do something, but up a stupid banner at the top of each page. We have these for the "pledge drives" every so often, it's annoying but it doesn't limit the availability of the encyclopedia. If I can't find what I need on here, I'll just look elsewhere. I use Wikipedia at work, and it's usually just the quickest place to check something. If it's down, I just move on to another website. To entirely block the website will do nothing but sour the whole experience for everyone. You want to protest? Fine, just don't make it a hassle for me. Oaktree b (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)