User:Almost-instinct
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Opinions
- almost-instinct is no fan of userboxes, barnstars or service awards: they all seem blunt tools that discourage detail, nuance and subtlety
- almost-instinct believes that if an article has been given an official rating by the community then the community should afford it some kind of official protection — especially given the amount of work demanded in polishing — and has resolved never to risk the heartache involved with going through the Good/Featured Article process
- almost-instinct found this, received during a discussion about notability, very funny:
I fail to understand how a Spanish village can be notable in Spain but not in England
- almost-instinct will mourn the loss of “non-Euclidian inverted commas” as and when they are expunged from our lives.
[edit] Thoughts
almost-instinct is new here and says:
Amongst other things, I'm interested in the process by which a new member learns the various rules and pieces of etiquette, and how more experienced members behave towards new members. I have noted the page Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers
- While feeling impressed by the sophistication that Wikipedia has evolved already, there are some things that could be improved on eg I think it's a shame that one's initial contributions under an anonymous IP address can't then be brought under the banner of one's account - though I can see some benefits ... not least that you would need to do a bit of searching to find a piece of vandalism I once did ...
- I am concerned about humour, and dryness for dryness sake. I feel that humour is an intrinsic part of standard English Language expression. While jokes go against the encyclopedic tone required in Wikipedia, my initial impression is that in avoiding the grey areas a needlessly dull tone is adopted, especially by those tidying up initial contributions
- Browsing the Talk pages, I've clocked the amount of emotional energy spent on featured articles. Although new as a member, previously I've spent a while using Wiki as the resource its intended to be. Not once did I notice any kind of official grading. The only gauge on whether I should trust an entry was my own bullshit detector. No doubt one day I'll change my tune on this, but right now it seems to me that anyone who's in a position to worry about FA status for their efforts is far beyond needing any kind of meaningless official gong. If you're making a sizeable contribution, inside yourself you'll already know your value
- When I made my first contribution of substance to an entry, not wanting to smother the page in references, I wrote on the talk page asking for advice on what might need references. Within 24 hours a “this needs references” template had been slapped on by an experienced editor, without any other comment on the talk page. This left me feeling angry, though eventually I got over myself. I note the following two quotes from the entry on etiquette:
- “Remember the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would have them treat you – even if they are new. We were all new once...”
- “Give praise when due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on users' talk pages.”
Experienced and polite editors are encouraged to comment on this page in the relevent section of almost-instinct's talk page
