Talk:Volatile Works

We created this article in good faith, and with very little experience of Wiki-Ethics. We are very concerned now that our article has been tagged in this way. This sort of tagging is a rather heavy-handed approach, especially when the editor was never contacted. A more dialogic approach seems to be more in line with Wiki guidelines.

From the wikipedia guidelines:

"Assuming good faith is about intention, not action. Well-meaning people make mistakes, and you should correct (but not scold) them when they do."

No-one ever discussed this situation with us. Again, from the wikipedia guidelines:

"The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline."

Where do we go from here? We would like to make changes to the page that are more in line with Wiki guidelines.

Also, the page now has proper footnotes and most of the information is from third-party publications.

Marioscido


 * It's not a question of "Wiki-Ethics", it's all about what is and is not acceptable, either in tone or content in an encyclopedia. Tagging messages is a perfectlyt acceptable way to raise issues. I have posted a belated welcome message on your talk page with links to various policies and guidelines. I will also repost below this message the excellent reply by Teratornis to your message at the Help desk.


 * [Reposted from Help desk by ukexpat]I agree. The lead section begins with some rather stilted art-crowd cant which would probably confuse a general audience as I had to work a bit to decode it. It may be fashionable in art circles to invent new words for ordinary things, but when writing encyclopedically we choose words that are understandable to the most people. Please read WP:LEAD and WP:PEACOCK (in particular, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform the readers quickly, not to impress them with flowery language but to let the facts about the subject speak for themselves), and study the examples of Wikipedia's best work in this topic area: FA. Wikipedia's featured articles have come through the heaviest scrutiny and provide concrete examples of what it means to comply with Wikipedia's complex and sometimes abstract policies and guidelines. Note that the User:Marioscido account has but 118 edits, which is a bit light for creating new articles from scratch, especially about subjects with a possible conflict of interest. This is not to discourage anyone from trying, but simply to point out that because Wikipedia is unlike anything most people have used before, considerable experience is often necessary to understand what to do. By analogy, I have absolutely no experience with filmmaking, so one can imagine my first attempt might be wide of the mark. But the only way to master Wikipedia's do it yourself craft is to read the friendly manuals, study the work of experts, listen to criticism (always in abundance here), and keep trying. It's easier to learn Wikipedia by editing existing articles which are also being edited by other more knowledgeable users, so one can study what the other editors do to one's own edits, and rely on the other editors to provide most of the structure. It's much harder to create new articles from scratch, because then one has to understand every single component of what makes up an acceptable article. --Teratornis (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)