User talk:Featurelessmind
about Daily Life Practice[edit]
The issue isn't whether I find Daily Life Practice important. My personal standards are higher in general than the consensus (which is really to say, the squeakiest wheels), and there are a lot of articles and even whole classes of articles here that would go away if I were running the show. I've thrown in the towel on these because it's obvious I'm never going to prevail.
That said, one of the things we have to ride herd on quite diligently is articles whose character is essentially to advertise their subject. It's quite common for beginning politicians, for example, to create or have created on them an article in Wikipedia, even though they haven't yet been elected to any office. Similar articles on martial arts masters and their supposed systems, on minor actors and athletes, and on self-improvement techniques are also very common. If this "daily life practice" catches on, then nobody will have a problem with there being an article on it. But we do not want to be put in the position of promoting a system for which, in the real world, there is no real interest or for that matter documentation. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Points all well taken, Mangoe. In real life (if there is such a thing) I'm a freelance technical translator: wouldn't it be nice to have a Wikipedia article singing my praises? Nothing better for business I should think.
My work involves consulting Wikipedia regularly, and from time to time I encounter those superfluous, self-serving articles you describe. Articles that appear to have been written by corporate marketing departments really rub me the wrong way: if I want that drivel, I can consult the website of the corporation in question.
While it would be disingenuous to suggest that the article on Daily Life Practice is entirely devoid of advertising character, its essential purpose remains the dissemination of information. I know this because Dr. Sherlock (who is nearing retirement) has been doing this work for several decades and has never really made any money doing it. He does it because he believes in it - maybe something like the way you contribute your time to Wikipedia because you believe in it.
Yes, young politicians and martial arts masters believe in themselves too, so this is no legitimate argument. The difference would be if Daily Life Practice actually helps people, which is a leap of faith because it's virtually impossible to document (especially given the constraints of the Hippocratic Oath).Featurelessmind (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Actually the merits of the thing are mostly irrelevant, as considered themselves. The important thing is whether the rest of the world cares, one way or another. We need third party sources, not just as independent sources of information, but as verification that the thing is of some note. That is where your statement that Wikipedia is for "dissemination of information" is mistaken: its purpose is only secondarily dissemination, but first of all, codification. It is not here to make the unknown known, but to collect together the known and make it thus more widely visible.
- Don't take this as a condemnation of the subject in question. If it draws notice in mainline publications (or notoriety, if it comes to that) then nobody will have a problem with an article. But not yet. Mangoe (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks again for your time and patience, I think I've learned a lot on my first day here.
- I must admit, I personally find the notion of determining what the rest of the world cares about rather daunting. I'm generally perplexed by contemporary civilization and have a hard time finding the right Christmas gift for my wife.
- Despite this, time permitting, I might just try my hand at Wiki copy editing. In the meantime, keep up the good work.Featurelessmind (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)