Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-02-15/WikiProject report

I suggest you add a question about the challenges faced by editors of Singapore-related articles. ----J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone left out tha capitalisation in 'Wikipedian'. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That someone has fixed it :) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Photography in Singapore

Personally, I don't think that "in Singapore, photography is banned in many places and people taking photos in public sometimes receive unwanted attention from security personnel" are the reasons why we sometimes lack good photographs. I think it is more likely that the smaller population means there aren't as many people taking photographs and uploading them under free licences. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing habits

JackLee brings up a point which may prove to be Wikipedia's greatest weakness: we all tend to "beaver away at articles that they are interested in on their own without feeling the need to get in touch with other" Wikipedians. While writing has always been a solitary activity, the downside is that when a Wikipedian is in need of some help for any number of reasons -- looking for assistance in a conflict with other Wikipedians, needing some careful advice with writing or research, or simply to talk with someone else who shares the Wikipedia experience -- it's hard to find another person. Wikipedians end up feeling isolated, become more discouraged & enter a vicious cycle that may lead them to leave. -- llywrch (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel there are numerous avenues available to Wikipedians to want to get in touch with other editors for advice, support and other reasons, including user talk pages, Wikipedia policy and WikiProject talk pages, and general fora such as the Village Pump. It is really a matter of how much contact each editor wants to have with others. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What I am pointing out involves more than simply "wanting to get in touch". Based on my experience, there is a tendency for a Wikipedian who adds a lot of content -- but interacts relatively little with other Wikipedians -- to wonder why her/his work receives so little comment, based on the assumption that contributing edits is, by definition, communicating itself. "I'm writing all of this content about X," the editor thinks. "So why is no one responding to my communications?" Introversion is confused with extroversion, & the silence is wrongly interpreted as a lack of approval -- or even disapproval -- leading to isolation & so forth. (This dynamic is not unique to Wikipedia: I know from experience that one's first encounter of honest criticism in a creative writing class can be quite devastating. But online media seems to strengthen this effect.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting... It's certainly true that it can be hard to gauge people's attitudes through written messages. What was intended to be friendly advice can, if not worded carefully, come across as criticism. We should all bear that in mind when posting messages. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Prolific GA writers are our most valuable resource and ought to be given more support, not treated like this. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Spirit and letter of policies

Maybe I'm wrong, but it has always been my impression that we are supposed to "follow the spirit, rather than the letter, of policies" - this is certainly supported by policies and guidelines, WP:IAR predominant among them, which actively encourage ignoring other policy where it obstructs improving the encyclopedia. --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 67.58.229.153 (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ooops! Corrected to "may follow the letter, rather than the spirit, of policies". Thanks for pointing that out! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)