User talk:CravinChillies
This site is a waste of time[edit]
No need to add anything to that, really, but I will nevertheless add that the site is wide open to abuse because no one has the gumption to apply mandatory login, which is very easy to implement. "Anyone can edit" is a ridiculous, impractical and utterly misguided ideal which should be "anyone can register" – i.e., until they are expelled.
In my opinion, there is a lack of commitment to provision of information for the readers and there is an overall lack of quality. The majority of editors are people who cannot write good English and are intent on satisfying their own agenda without any consideration at all for anyone else who might wish to read the article. Most articles lack thorough research and even the better-intentioned editors add content that is based on something they THINK they know rather something that they are actually reading in a reliable source. As a result, much of the content is open to question.
Worst of all are the administrators. What exactly is the point of these people other than to block vandals? And they are inefficient and slow in achieving only that. My impression is that administrative STATUS (which is how most of them see the role – a status symbol) is open to anyone with 10k edits who has shown some interest in processes rather than writing articles. Administration is a skill akin to management and it needs an ability to deal with people. With rare exceptions, the so-called administrators on Wikipedia do not have any such skillset.
There is a prevalent obsession throughout the site with "policies" and "guidelines" that make little sense and are invariably contradictory. The worst cases are the numerous attempts to define notability, something that is not even a core concept and which should be simplicity itself. How? As this is a digital encyclopaedia, anything which is verifiable by a reliable secondary source must be notable. What could be easier to understand and implement? I entirely agree that sources must be secondary and that there must be no original research; given these premises, how can notability be such a problem?
I think I would summarise the problems of Wikipedia by asserting that the site as a whole displays a complete lack of common sense.
I do not propose to waste any more time here. I have much better things to do. CravinChillies 13:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry[edit]
Hey - I know your page says you are retired, but I just wanted to extend an olive branch. I know the ANI discussion didn't go as you had hoped and you now feel disillusioned by Wikipedia. I would just like to say that that does not have to be the case. I believe that Wikipedia is a great forum for people like us who care about content and subject matter to make a difference for everyone else who may visit the pages we edit. There is no other venue like this in the world.
So I would hope that one negative experience wouldn't sour you on the subject. I had several negative experiences when I first started out over 10 yrs ago and I like to think I'm a better editor because of them. I'd also like to somewhat defend the admins as they are doing their best amongst a gigantic pile of people who try and cause problems for others. I would just say that if you had come to me and asked to collaborate - or at least defend a revert of your content - I would have been happy to work with you. Really.
So if you come back, please consider my words and I'd be happy to hear from you. K? Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke