User talk:Jibberbogger

Your survey

Thanks for your msg I have replied at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#help_on_a_survey. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia from SqueakBox! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here is a list of useful links that I have compiled:

Again, welcome, SqueakBox 21:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]

I have blocked this account. Please do not create further accounts to spam users with email surveys. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked your account. It's not generally a good idea to post e-mails to individual users. Instead you could post your message at Wikipedia:Village pump, or the mailing list. Please drop a note on my talk page, in case you need help. utcursch | talk 03:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Email

[edit]

I got your survey email, but would prefer to answer it if you post it here on wiki. Talk page me if you make a page for it. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Reply from Geniac

[edit]

Are there any principles you follow when writing/editing an article for Wikipedia? Yes. See Wikipedia:Five pillars.
What are the characteristics of a ‘good article’? See Wikipedia:What is a good article?
Are there any circumstances in which you correct an existing article? If so, which? Yes. See Special:Contributions/Geniac (Main)
What do you think are the most important differences between Wikipedia and a standard encyclopedia? (apart from contribution principles) See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia
Do you see any differences in the language of articles between Wikipedia and a paper encyclopedia? If so, which? I wouldn't know because I never use paper encyclopedias; they're heavy, expensive, a waste of paper and obsolete.
Do you think Wikipedia represents and promotes any values? If so, which? Yes. See Wikipedia:Five pillars.

--Geniac 23:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Athaenara

[edit]

Are there any principles you follow …
I have a lot of respect for this encyclopedia's policies and guidelines and happily conform to them.
What are the characteristics …
Accuracy, readability, useful citations and links (especially those which encourage one to learn more about a subject), interesting and informative images.
Are there any circumstances …
I remove inappropriate citations or links (internal or external) and try to find appropriate ones to add; correct factual errors; add and cite pertinent information which has been overlooked; reduce repetition; improve syntax, grammar, spelling.
What do you think are the most important differences …
I think the most important difference is that it encourages people who might not otherwise have thought themselves suited to scholarly pursuit to give it a try.
Do you see any differences in the language …
If by language you mean the quality of writing, it is less consistent than in the standard commercial varieties.
Do you think Wikipedia represents and promotes …
My answers to questions 1 and 4 apply. — Athaenara ✉ 03:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Acs4b

[edit]

Are there any principles you follow when writing/editing an article for Wikipedia?
Yes. Just like what Athaenara said, there are several policies and guidelines to follow when editing an article. I would try my best to conform to those policies and guidelines.
What are the characteristics of a ‘good article’?
A good article is an article that is well sourced, well written, accurate, neutral and relevant. It also contains images that are licensed or do not have fair use.
Are there any circumstances in which you correct an existing article? If so, which?
Yes, I do. I remove irrelevant external links (including spam), I add pertinent categories to uncategorised articles, I improve the grammar and spelling, I revert edits that appear to be vandalism, and so on.
What do you think are the most important differences between Wikipedia and a standard encyclopedia? (apart from contribution principles)
First of all, Wikipedia doesn't have a size limit. It means that article that the length of each article on Wikipedia is infinite. Secondly, since Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, it is constantly updated. The information in a paper encyclopedia might be outdated. Paper encyclopedias also have another weakness, they are not environmentally friendly. To put it in another perspective, they waste paper.
Do you see any differences in the language of articles between Wikipedia and a paper encyclopedia? If so, which?
I'm sorry, but I won't be able to answer this question as I don't use paper encyclopedias.
Do you think Wikipedia represents and promotes any values? If so, which?
Yes, it promotes honesty, respect, civility and coordination (since Wikipedia is a community). -- Acs4b ^{T C U} 02:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Utcursch

[edit]

I've also e-mailed you the replies to you. utcursch | talk 04:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Are there any principles you follow when writing/editing an article for Wikipedia?

I try my best to follow the Wikipedia content policies. These following principles are espescially important to me:

Neutral point of view: The content should not be biased. This is little difficult, since all human beings are biased in some way, but the editors should try not to impose their point-of-view on the reader. They should try to present the facts, not personal opinions.
Biographies of living persons: One should not include any controversial or negative information about a person, without citing a reliable source.
No original research: Wikipedia is not the place for publishing original thoughts or theories. Not that original research is bad, but it falls out of Wikipedia's project scope. For example, if you come up with a groundbeaking scientific theory, an academic journal, and not Wikipedia, is the correct place for publishing it.
Verifiability: Others should be able to verify the accuracy of the content contributed by you. Therefore, you should contribute content with references.

2. What are the characteristics of a 'good article'?

The criteria for a good article decided by the Wikipedia community are mentioned at Wikipedia:What is a good article?. Personally, I would call an article good if it has these characteristics:

Good coverage of major points
Correct grammar and spelling
Unbiased and neutral
Well-sourced from reliable sources (i.e. good references)
Illustrations

3. Are there any circumstances in which you interfere in or correct an existing article? If so, which?

This happens all the time, since Wikipedia is a work in progress.

Most of the times, I edit existing articles to fix typos, add references, or "wikify" them (i.e. correct the syntax). Several articles are written by users with little knowledge of wiki syntax (which takes some time to learn). So, experienced users need to "wikify" these articles. Similarly, many new users don't know how to add references to their newly-created articles. I often try to add references to these articles, so that they don't get deleted for the lack of references.

Often, I edit articles on my favorite topics to bring them to the status of a "featured article" or a "good article". These articles are included in the CD/DVD versions of Wikipedia <http://schools-wikipedia.org/>, and featured on the main page.

Sometimes, I also interfere to prevent an "edit war". Often, different users fight over what should be or should not be included in an article. They keep reverting each other's edits, leading to an edit war. Many times, this happens because the article is poorly written. In such cases, I simply rewrite the article.

4. What do you think are the most important differences between Wikipedia and a standard encyclopedia? (apart from contribution principles)

Wikipedia's contributors come from a variety of backgrounds, from different countries, from different age groups. As a result, you'll find a much diverse range of topics in Wikipedia. On the other hand, the traditional encyclopedias are generally authored by comparatively less number of of editors, who generally come from similar cultural or ethnic backgrounds. The traditional English-language encyclopedias, for example, concentrate mainly on European (esp. British) or American topics of scholarly interest. Wikipedia covers articles on a wider range of topics from all over the world.

Wikipedia is also updated at a much faster rate -- almost every second, while the traditional encyclopedias are revised less frequently.

A traditional encyclopedia's credibility comes from the expertise of its authors. For example, we all know that Encyclopædia Britannica is written by scholars, so we can trust it better. However, Wikipedia's readers cannot trust it blindly. Wikipedia is a good for getting quick overview of a topic, but it should not be used as a source for an academic paper or report. The readers should verify the "references" mentioned in an article, and use them for further research.

Wikipedia can be edited by anybody with Internet access, which is the reasons for its extensive growth, and is also the reason why it's not 100% reliable.

Also, Wikipedia's content is licensed under GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). That means anybody can use it, copy it, distribute it, and modify it. On the other hand, the content of the traditional encyclopedias is copyrighted (although older versions are now in public domain).

In my opinion, projects like Wikipedia are the future of knowledge dissemination. The traditional encyclopedias were conceptualized in a period, when people didn't have access to vast amount of information through Internet. To start their research, they had to go through a number of books in the libraries. The encyclopedias would come in handy in such situations: you could use an encyclopedia to get quick information on at topic, without having to spend hours searching for relevant books in the library. However, today, sites like JSTOR, Questia, Google Books etc. offer access to primary sources (articles, books, journals etc.) written by well-known experts. All you need to do is type a few words in the search engine. So, an encyclopedia (which is a secondary source) is no longer needed for research. The only function of an encyclopedia today is to provide the reader a quick overview of the topic. Wikipedia fits the bill quite well. It doesn't promise to be 100% reliable or 100% accurate, but it's a great way to gain a quick overview of a subject, and a great place to start your research.

5. Do you see any differences in the language of articles? If so, which?

Do you mean the tone or the variations? Yes, different articles will reflect the common language varieties used by different contributors. For example, an article related to United Kingdom will generally use British English, while an article related to United States will typically use American English. Also, the encyclopedic tone might vary from article to article, depending on the subject matter. For example, an article on philosophy will use a more formal tone than the article on a comic book character.

6. Do you think Wikipedia represents and promotes any values? If so, which?

Wikipedia stands for freedom and openness. It's a great example of what can be done with collaboration and cooperation. It's a great example of how people from different cultures, different countries and different age groups can come together to create a great knowledge resource.

Of course, Wikipedia is not without its flaws. The different backgrounds of its editors often leads to disagreements. Its open and free-for-all nature leads to criticism from several people. But, ultimately, the Wikipedia model has proved to be a successful collaborative effort. utcursch | talk 04:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Icairns

[edit]

1. Are there any principles you follow when writing/editing an article for Wikipedia?

I try to follow Wiki guidelines and common sense.

In particular:

a) All people articles should have DoB, DoD (if applicable), an infobox, categories for DoB, PoB, DoD, PoD, other categories, an image if available otherwise a Replace this image male / female.svg if not

b) all other articles should be free from typos, well-structured (e.g. bold name at top), categorised, etc.

2. What are the characteristics of a ‘good article’?

a) People articles contain all the above prereqisites

b) other articles are at least categorised, stubbed as appropriate

3. Are there any circumstances in which you correct an existing article? If so, which?

a) Please see above. If the article is deficient, then it is corrected - no omissions...

4. What do you think are the most important differences between Wikipedia and a standard encyclopedia? (apart from contribution principles)

a) Most standard encyclopaedeias are annually updated with paper volumes. Wiki is updated continuously online.

b) Wikipedia is currently free from adverts - long may it continue

c) Wikipedia is currently free to access - long may it continue

d) Wikipedia aspires to be available multi-lingually

e) Wikipedia is constructed to be self-correcting - not always accurate, but it does attempt to be accurate.

5. Do you see any differences in the language of articles between Wikipedia and a paper encyclopedia? If so, which?

a) NPOV is a subtle cause - but Wikipedia has caused me to look closely at other reference documents, and find them to be not much better.

6. Do you think Wikipedia represents and promotes any values? If so, which?

a) NPOV, international understanding (I do a lot of work on the international editions)

Ian Cairns (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Omphaloscope

[edit]

Anna,

Good luck with your research.

1. Are there any principles you follow when writing/editing an article for Wikipedia?

Clarity: I edit mostly for grammar, so I try to follow good grammatical principles, and above all, I try to ensure that the prose is lucid.

Relevance: I have been known to remove passages that I found irrelevant, although I am usually hesitant to do so. A lot of unpaid labor goes into writing many eloquent, if slightly off-topic, passages, and who am I to remove them without a really good reason? In obviously irrelevant cases I will just delete text with a brief explanatory edit summary. In less-obvious cases, or when I am removing a significant portion of text, I will make a note of the deletion in the talk page, and invite comment. I have done this probably about 10 times in three years, and I have never had anyone dispute me, although I continue to operate under the assumption that people will.

2. What are the characteristics of a 'good article'?

As above, clarity and relevance are the foremost virtues. I think a bit of wit would not be amiss now and again. I see Wikipedia as a clearinghouse for facts and opinions, established elsewhere, and said by others, with appropriate citations. An article should be a good point of entry into a topic. A good article should thus be thick with citations. Certain fields, such as mathematics, which have a good claim to objectivity and which are largely self-evident (they are 'a priori'), do not need citations, other than perhaps references to the proofs where their claims have been adequately spelled out. Otherwise, nothing should be said on Wikipedia without a good foothold in external sources. Ideally, a Wikipedia article should never say anything even remotely disputable without putting it as "Such and such a source says such and such a thing."

6. Do you think Wikipedia represents and promotes any values? If so, which?

Yes, it is quite evidently Amerocentric. This is simply a quantitative fact -- there are more articles on topics of concern to Americans than any other group, as far as I can tell. And on any given topic, the American perspective, interpretation or definition that topic is almost always given more attention. Look at articles on law and you shouldn't have trouble finding an example of a legal concept which has English and American meanings, but of which only the American meaning is explained. This certainly promotes, if accidentally, an Amerocentric perspective.

I suspect that Wikipedia is generally slanted toward the standpoint of the kind of people who have time to edit it, i.e., students and the middle class, but I don't have any hard evidence on that.

On the positive side, I think Wikipedia embodies and promotes the power of people to do extraordinary things in their leisure time.

Omphaloscope talk 21:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]