From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Regarding Wikipedia
I'm probably a little biased when I say this, and I maybe don't understand the full purposes of the image policies, but I agree that it is rather unfair. Licenses for any images is the best of the best of ideas, I don't doubt, but for copyrighted images, the images should not be deleted just because they don't have a fair use rationale. Adding a rationale for each use of the images is never a bad thing, no, but I think it should suffice just to say in the summary of the image in its file where you got it from (if from a site, leave a link to it (and avoid linkspam)), that it is under a copyright, and why it's being used in the article/s it's being used in. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia; however we use the images is not going to affect the copyright holders' ownership of the images! It isn't Wikipedia's fault if someone tries to violate the copyright of any of the fair use images, which could happen with or without a fair use rationale. I do think, however, that we should go for lower-resolution fair use images. If it says in the file that you can click a link to see the full resolution, you know you uploaded too big an image.
Registration should be required to edit articles. Boy should it ever! After all, many IP addresses are shared, and they almost always move around frequently. I should know; that used to happen to me all the time, before I registered. Anyway, this might mean that with one IP address, let us call it 4.54.678.99, numerous people might have it, but only one of these people vandalizes Wikipedia, or violates any of the other policies for which blocking a user can ensue. Then the IP address gets blocked, of course, and what if another person with that IP comes along, not knowing any of this happened? They have something they want to contribute, or they see something which needs to be fixed, etc., and they can't do anything about it because they've been blocked. They either have to create an account or wait it out till the block expires. Or, if address 4.54.678.99 was blocked because a student (it was a school IP, we'll say, when it was being used for vandalism or junk-period.) was using it to violate the policies, and it then becomes a household IP, a resident of the house it belongs to now might want to edit Wikipedia, and can't because it was blocked due to someone else's abuse. It would save everyone a lot of false accusations, unfair-treatment, and busying-around on both sides (IP and blocking-administrator) if IPs weren't allowed to edit at all. They must log-in or create their own accounts, first. There is also one other upside to this. There is a user who has been around for a long time, under various IP addresses, demanding that other users ghost-parent articles for him/her just because they, for their own reasons, don't want to create an account. They've even harassed the other users when they request that they create an account, or refuse to create those articles for them, many of which are for real-life people who aren't even notable enough to have an article. Creating a new law of having to register an account, and be logged-in to it, before you can edit, could stop this user from all the attacking and heavy-ladening demands they make on other users, as they either would have to create an account and start all those articles for themselves, or just give up on it altogether. Although I'm sure we'd all prefer the first possible result. A final word on this topic, of course. I think this rule should apply to all articles, Wikipedia policy and instruction pages, userpages, and talkpages, except any of the sandboxes. Those, I don't think it would hurt for IP addresses to be allowed to edit. That's all I have to say.
[edit] My regards to the Wikipedia policies
I think certain policies (of the ones I know of, that is) are very good to go by, but others I sincerely hope will one day be abandoned by all users, and the following of them will be considered vandalism.
No original research - very good plan, I say. In many cases, such as with Ducky, original research can be very harmful. I've gently explained to those users (they are not vandals, just misguided editors) that she has been consistently referred to as a Parasaurolophus in all of the official material.
No speculation - I'm willing to go by this rule, but I am strongly opposed to it. Specualtion, granted that it doesn't border on original research, can be a very good thing. For instance, with minor characters Kevin (Chinese-American boy) and Esther of South Park, it should be noted that their strong resemblance to each other implies that they are twins.
No images of minor characters - WTH? Why on earth not? If the images have proper licenses and fair use or free use rationales, then why should they not be included? The image of Wendy Testaburger, for instance, is not only important (she isn't even a minor character, she has had enough prominent appearances to at least deserve an image, if not a private article), but also a very beautiful image of a very very beautiful lady, and Wikipedia should feel under a privilege to have the image dwell amongst its contents. Very peculiar and particularily dumb policy, to not allow certain character ranks to have images. Delete this policy right away, I say.
Licensing and rationalizing images and other files - I completely agree, every image needs a proper license for distribution in Wikipedia and most if not all need a fair use rationale. I've been very careful to follow these guidelines when uploading images.
No Trivia sections - Meh... yes and no. In some cases, what is considered a trivia section is good, and in some cases, it's bad. Then again, in some cases, it's iffy. For television show characters and episodes, for instance, I think trivia should be allowed; for biographies on major celebrities like Gwen Stefani; trivia sections might be declared clutter, and are therefore bad. In things like for cultures, like France, I don't really care whether there's trivia included or not. But a way to improve a trivia section, wherever one may be found, is to change it's header from "Trivia" to something like "Notes" or "Facts" or something to that extreme - then it's no longer trivia. But for TV characters, (or any fictional/nonfictional characters), books and episodes, and series, yes, those tiny crumbs of information that are assembled into what is commonly called a trivia section really ought to be included, as I'm sure the majority of those who read my userpage will agree.
No non-free content in List-articles Okay, now you've lost me. Why? That's all I can say. Why?
No personal attacks on other editors Meh, this one's a dumb. It's the encyclopedia that matters, the feelings of the editors are just trivial. While it is better to be nice to the editors, if you want to say something negative about them, you should be allowed. I'll demonstrate: User:Warthogdemon is nosy and should leave others alone. Nothing personal actually, that was just a for-instance. If anyone ever makes a personal attack on me, I'll do nothing about it. If another user removes the attack from my talkpage, I'll put it right back. It's my userpage, after all. If I want any attacks made on me to be kept, then I should have this wish granted.
