Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page World energy resources and consumption worked, but it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. General Hindsight (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to World energy resources and consumption, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. General Hindsight (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Why get an account?
- Why did I say you should get an account? Genuine answer. Wikipedia is a brave experiment. ANYONE can edit it, which is of course enormously fraught. Anyone with even a charitable expectation of humanity would expect MOST editors to be deliberately malicious and/or have an age (mental and/or chronological) of about 10 and/or be suffering from a more or less serious mental illness. And I don't think it is unfair to point out that many edits ARE in fact of this nature, producing what can only be described as graffiti ("vandalism" in wikispeak). "Serious" editors spend a great deal of time that (theoretically at least) could be spent much more productively "reverting vandalism" (scraping graffiti off the wall). The (potentially at least) useful encyclopedia is being built by a relatively small core of "serious" editors - most of whom (at least after the first week or so) get an account. Getting an account does not identify you personally - but it does mean "we" (i.e. not just "management", but more importantly the body of serious editors) "know" who you are in terms of what you do here. An editor with a proper account and a long record of well intentioned ("good faith" in wikispeak) edits that are at least most of the time more or less hit the mark (actually improve articles) will be "taken seriously". His/her edits will not be reverted lightly, fellow editors will tend to read them carefully and mull over them before hitting the "undo" button and racing on to the next item in the mornings work on their "watch list". Alternatively, of course, a registered editor with a history of graffiti can be "undone" without much thought. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Aah.. but it's a 'brave' experiment, iff you don't introduce conditions which insulate it from what you depict as the "big bad world". Being prejudicial about the nature of edits (i.e. extending the principle of charity only to registered editors and accepting edits without sceptical review, while subjecting 'anonymous' IP-only edits to inquisition, and unread deletion) instantly changes the nature of the experiment. Suddenly, this 'core' of "serious editors" - in acting as gatekeepers are serving the same function as those Brittanica/World Book/Encarta etc. employees who were tasked with selecting contributors, rather than content.
- Sounds like too much work to read every editor's submission, and spend the time verifying it? THAT's the point. No one was ever meant to go around policing Wikipedia, let alone policing all of it. Misinformation propagation by ill-advised omission/removal is on par with misinformation by vandalism. In other words, unbridled non-expert (based on the fit of person with article they're operating on) censors are the same as the vandals.