From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi, I'm on Wikibreak. Read my rant :)

Hi, my nick is Quirex. I am a Something Awful goon.

I am interesed in geometry and polyhedra.

I'm a pretty firm believer in wikipedia policy and I like to apply wikipedia policy in AFDs.

I want Wikipedia to be better than Britannica, Britannica doesn't reference everything it claims about a topic, Wikipedia should. Wikipedia has the space and resources and to properly reference all articles to allow researchers access to the reliable secondary materials. So I will go out of my way to find Original Research and notify editors of it and in some cases provide the necessary references (depends on how much Wiki-time I have).

I am getting sick of Wikipedia:

  • I am getting of sick of Editors who don't cite sources and then claim common knowledge (this is very Eurocentric).
  • I am sick of Criticism articles filled to the brim with OR and lacking citations.
  • I am irritated by the primary sourcing of criticism articles (you need to cite synthesized, secondary sources to make claims about critics!)
  • I am sick of fiction articles (particularly TV) rely solely on a primary source (the show itself).
  • I am sick of anime articles being poorly written and having 0 sources.
  • I am sick of editors defending the lack of sourcing in their edits.
  • I am sick of arguing with people that WP:A should be followed.
  • I am sick of articles like Criticism of Christianity which are flooded with POV pushers who damage the article on each pass.

How can Wikipedia be improved? The rules are abstract, this means that a good chunk of the editors will have problems even applying and reading them. We need examples of policy use (not precedents) so that editors who lack the ability to formally reason about a topic can apply concrete reasoning.

We need to give editors tutorials on policy. Perhaps when you sign up an acct it keeps harassing you to take a little Wiki-class just to push WP:A etc.