User:Pigman/Some Thoughts on Wikipedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Some Thoughts on Wikipedia: being dark musings on the culture and anti-culture of the project
I'm very bemused by the ability of Wikipedia to eat and spit out volunteers/editors/admins of high quality while encouraging counterproductive members to actively sabotage the community in myriad ways.
There is a tendency to view the complainers, the trollish and the meanspirited as dissenters, merely unpopular but necessary voices providing a counterpoint to the mainstream of Wikipedia culture. In some/many cases this is true: Disagreements can be very useful in pointing to weaknesses or flaws in Wikipedia policy, process or accepted guidelines. However, the enshrinement of AGF also leads to tolerance of behaviors and attitudes actively corrosive to regular Wikipedia editors and community accomplishment.
Blatant vandals are easy to identify. They blank pages, insert inappropriate vulgarities and misinformation and generally do obviously detrimental things to articles. However, there are often participants (some even longtime editors) whose actions are less blatant in destroying the project. These are editors who never seem to improve anything they touch on Wikipedia. They never write or contribute to articles. On talk pages, they only seem to argue and provide roadblocks to improvement. I'm not talking about rudeness or abrasive behaviour (although these can also be negative influences) but verbal snipers, petty jabbers with vicious and petty minds, persistent reverters to make a point. Everyone knows some editors like this, editors who make working on Wikipedia a struggle for everyone else.
To be clear: I'm not talking about people who disagree with others, who engage in debate and constructive argument, sometimes fiercely and vigorously. In many ways, those people are the lifeblood of Wikipedia, working out conflicts in a productive manner and progressing the state of the project. It's difficult for me to quantify the difference but it is usually obvious and apparent within a couple of exchanges with someone which camp they fall into.
[edit] The conservative in me
Lately I've found myself becoming very conservative as to what entries and individual articles are appropriate and desirable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I'm uncertain if this is because I'm applying stricter (and unreasonable) standards or whether I'm becoming a more ardent deletionist.
I have trouble determining whether an obscure arcade game really needs it's own article or if the problem is my personal indifference to the importance of the subject. Does every album by any musical artist really need its own article?
Perhaps I've just become very good at picking out the indications of flawed articles from the New pages but so many that I look at seem obviously unsuitable for Wikipedia for very basic reasons: non-notability, lack of reliable and verifiable sources, what Wikipedia is not, etc. I'd like to think my judgment isn't prejudiced or narrowly geared only to my personal knowledge and views but I know that there is always the danger of using my own priorities and preferences rather than purely Wikipedian standards as benchmarks.
(in progress, to be continued)
