User:Benjaminikuta

__INDEX__





Hello, my name is Benjamin, and I am new at this.

This is my user page, I guess.

I now attend UC Riverside.

I'm a teenage boy from California.

Update: I'm not a teenager anymore.

I don't want to grow old. = (

I apologize in advance for the poor quality of my edits.

I wish other editors would try to improve my contributions rather than just undoing them.

Many of my edits are controversial, and are reverted before I manage to find a way to say it right.

Do not revert a large edit because much of it is bad and you do not have time to rewrite the whole thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary#Unacceptable_reversions

Instead, find even a little bit of the edit that is not objectionable and undo the rest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Try_to_fix_problems

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary#One-revert_rule

I voluntarily follow the one revert rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Benjaminikuta/Students_for_Rand

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Benjaminikuta/contributions

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Benjaminikuta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:76.95.155.84

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/216.175.80.194

Looks like the earliest edit of mine that I have a record of is 9 December 2013.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Benjaminikuta/todo

This user has been on Wikipedia for years, days, and months.

This user has a native understanding of english.

This user is still trying to figure out userboxes.

Feel free to talk to me.

I'll always reply.

You can email me if you want.

My email is my username at gmail.

I'm concerned Wikipedia may be lacking in areas that don't lend themselves well to acedemic study.

I think policy should be better defined.

If something isn't well suited to academic study, should I just assume it's not important to know, be familiar with, and have an opinion on, or should I try to base my understanding on less than highly reliable sources?

I am particularly concerned with this line from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources.

"if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources."

Is it really safe to assume that the mainstream media reports on everything worth reporting on?

https://www.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/d8d1f/dear_entire_mainstream_media_please_stop/

Wikipedia celebrates curiosity.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you

"Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know."

I'm concerned about the usefulness of Wikipedia.

I'm concerned about how it treats the unknown.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Jessicamshannon/comments/77veii/letter_from_an_exslave_to_his_former_master_who/dorbn0c/

"you can read about slavery in history textbooks and on wikipedia or wherever but this makes it real to me."

I'm interested in the history of Wikipedia, and a fan of Larry Sanger.

"Benjamin, stop trolling and go do something useful please." --Jimbo Wales, November 2017

This user thinks that the vast majority of the budget of the Wikimedia Foundation is unessential to hosting Wikipedia, and the ad campaigns are unnecessary and annoying at best, and dishonest and misleading at worst.

This user thinks Victoria should never have been fired.

The ability to make judgements that are grounded in solid information, and employ careful analysis, should be one of the most important goals for any educational endeavor. As students develop this capability, they can begin to grapple with the most important and difficult step: to learn to place such judgements in an ethical framework. For all these reasons, there is no better investment that individuals, parents and the nation can make than an investment in education of the highest possible quality. Such investments are reflected, and endure, in the formation of the kind of social conscience that our world so desperately needs. --Aga Khan IV

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Avoid_copyright_paranoia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dissent_is_not_disloyalty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/User:Benjaminikuta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Citation_needed



I want to better understand why consensus is the way is it, so I wish past discussions were better summarized.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conflicting_Wikipedia_philosophies

This user wishes Larry Sanger would return.

This is a problem: https://i.imgur.com/xOC2HaN.png



This image of Wikimedia Foundation destroying Wikipedia is partly in jest, but partly serious. Coppied from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Should_administrators_be_able_to_unblock_themselves?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:37.122.157.121#lifeblood

WikimediaNoLicensing

I think omitting information is just as worthy of careful consideration as including it.

I think content is the most important thing, and I wish the community would refocus on it, like in the old days.

This user supports increased transparency in the finances of the Foundation.

I am somewhat distantly related to Sandra Segal Ikuta.

I have contributed most to List of common misconceptions.

I really like the Signpost and I'm sad it's having trouble.

I thankful for all those who have worked on it, and I hope more people will consider working on it again.

Listen for the whimper, not the bang.

This user is not a WikiDragon, but admires them, and aspires to be one.

This user would rather donate money toward an editathon prize fund than to the Foundation.

I agree with DGG that "Wikipedia is unreasonably restrictive about many elements of copyright.".

I get frustrated when I'm downvoted on reddit for saying that YouTube is not a reliable source.

I sometimes edit Wikipedia using a second generation iPod Touch, and I quite like that the site works well with such an old browser, unlike many modern sites.

I oppose 2FA. It's quite inconvenient.

All Wikimedia projects should be merged into a unified Wikipedia.

Seriously, who even uses WikiTravel?

If you're thinking of travelling to a place, chances are you look at the Wikipedia article.

Abolish WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTSOCIAL, WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTADVICE, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

Abolish TRUTH and OR. V is all that matters.

https://i.imgur.com/hX1sWAC.png

"That would be a disaster, many important topics are not notable by en-wiki standards but are essential to people that speak minority languages. As an example, African chieftains; generally deleted at AfD as minor politicians, but very relevant to have biographies for in a minor African language Wikipedia."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth_Mountain_Ski_Area#Changes_and_re-development

"with a stop near the top of Chair 1" isn't directly supported by the source, but I think it improves the article.

Wikipedia doesn't have ads because that would compromise its neutrality, or something like that. But what about the large donations from Amazon and Google? Wouldn't that have a similar effect?

Donate to Internet Archive, not the Wikimedia Foundation.

They're much more in need of funding.

They haven't even backed up all their data yet.

A nuke on the WMF cluster and we can rebuild fairly easily, a nuke on the IA cluster and you've just lost two decades of Internet, forever.

"The Wikipedia editor community seems to be firmly independent of what outside organizations want from Wikipedia. Even WMF!" ~IRC ?

"Probably the most famous incident was the image viewer/superprotect debacle on dewiki.

TL;DR: WMF spent like five years and obscene amounts of money developing a new image viewer overlay, but it had severe faults that led to many experienced editors wanting it disabled, dewiki finally held an RfC and making it opt-in won by a huge margin, and the WMF stepped in and said "uh, no" and added a new level of protection that makes it so only foundation staff can edit and enabled it on dewiki's interface page.

Some see WMF raising a substantial amounts of funds, mostly on a claims that is usually interpreted by the public that the funds are needed to keep the servers running that host Wikipedia (in all its language variants) and to pay for bandwidth. But the amount of funds raised far exceeds those costs, so WMF finds other things that "need" to be done.

In general the WMF is seen as kind of out of touch and throws vast amounts of money toward things the community doesn't really ask for." ~ IRC ?

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_Wikimedia_Foundation:_Superprotect_and_Media_Viewer

Jimbo made a really bad mistake when he made Wikia for profit.

He should have make it nonprofit.

The advertisements and other governance issues on it are very bad.



The key turning point was the increase in emphasis on WP:VERIFY. It unquestionably improved the quality of the encyclopedia, but it just as unquestionably changed us from a large community of online users sharing everything they know to a much smaller community of scholars willing to put in a significant amount of effort researching and documenting their use of reliable sources. That was a good thing for producing a more informative and trustworthy reference work, but it was effectively the end of "the encyclopedia everyone can edit", since most people simply can't or won't make the effort to do the kind of research required to make significant edits when every such edit requires an inline citation to a reliable published source. That combined with the exhaustion of many of the easiest topics has inevitably lead to the community shrinking. --Rusty Cashman (Source:The Signpost 2011, a comment)

Articles I've created:

John W. Taylor (professor)

Tax cuts in the United States (redirect)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:2nd_chance

I vaguely remembered reading this many years ago, but only just found it again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Redemption

"All banned editors are theoretically redeemable."

ToBeFree: "about the brand survey, I personally think that the Wikimedia Foundation, theoretically, should be a replaceable institution that a free encyclopedia does not depend on -- reality is different, and if the WMF decides to act against the community will, they'd probably even be able to sustain donations by readers who donate to Wikipedia without having any deeper knowledge about the internal structure. I believe that even if the WMF became evil, replacing Wikipedia by a fork would be nearly impossible today. This puts a lot of potential power and responsibility in the hand of an organization that in my opinion should ideally not have it"

Isn't there a contradiction between Jimbo's stated goal of collecting "all human knowledge", and the rather narrower prescription of policy?

"Participants did not know about the WMF, and did not know where the fundraising money goes. They did not understand how the community can participate in allocating the resources. I told them the my opinion, that the WMF still hasn't learned how to share its leadership together with the community and that they are operating as a company, which alienates me because they are not respecting the spirit of the projects." ~ Micru

"Participants reported that the current definition of knowledge by Wikimedia projects is narrow-minded and does not fit the relationship with knowledge that exists in other parts of the world." ~ Micru

https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism

"If you look at new editors’ talk pages, they can be pretty depressing - they’re often an uninterrupted stream of warnings and criticisms. Experienced editors put those warnings there because they want to make Wikipedia better: their intent is good. But the overall effect, we know, is that the new editors get discouraged. They feel like they’re making mistakes, that they’re getting in trouble, people don’t want their help. And so they leave, and who can blame them?" ~Sue Gardner

Category:Images that look like memes but are serious Wikipedia illustrations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ha_ha_wall_diagram.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sonic_boom.svg

https://pastebin.com/raw/NfWRcdNM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_incidents

Hosting the servers only costs about 3% of their budget.

Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/6/60/FY17-18_-_Independent_Auditors%27_Report.pdf

Wikimedia file URL:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Union_Township_Works_from_Dimmick_Road.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Union_Township_Works_from_Dimmick_Road.jpg



In general, I think economic heterodoxy is given undue weight on Wikipedia.

"I'd rather have a small stub than nothing" ~Steven Pruitt

"I will, occasionally, see an editor make a mistake, and there comes to be a pile-on on the talk page, and I think it scares them off. It's unfortunate." ~Steven Pruitt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TaylanUB#Block_appeal_#2

I've always been a bit bothered by the fact that I can't comment on discussions after they're closed. Consensus can change, and all that. Of course I can open a new discussion, but that's not always appropriate, if I don't expect my input to change the outcome. But it still is valid input, isn't it? And it might still contribute slightly to the incremental change of consensus in the future, right? And it particularly bothers me that I can't view the content of deleted articles, in order to form an opinion on them. It seems inconsistent that content should be deleted that would be fine to keep in history elsewhere. (revdel worthy content notwithstanding)

lolcats
Modern resource heavy web design is classist.

People often tell me I should just upgrade my computer or internet, but I think that's a bit invalidating.

Many people in the Global South have slow computers or internet connections; we sure care about them!

How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle

Scholarly papers that cite Wikipedia:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4449516/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Nearby

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overzealous_deletion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_be_ashamed

I oppose WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advocacy#Defences

"Wikipedia ... aims to synthesize .. information" If I remember correctly, such has been said elsewhere as well long ago, I think on the mailing list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advocacy#Defences

"If information needs to be published, there are many media outlets."

I take issue with this. This is related to the WP:V quote from higher on this page. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources."

But more directly to the point of that page, while of course it's possible and perhaps even common that an advocacy editor will edit in disruptive ways, it's also possible for such an editor to edit constructively. In any article, there will be some content favorable to one viewpoint, and some content favorable to another. Both should be present for the article to be good. An ideal editor would add both in a balanced way. A biased editor might only add content favorable to one viewpoint, but this should still be considered an improvement if that content might be present in a balanced article. Perhaps an editor biased the other way might add content favorable to the other viewpoint, and perhaps a third editor might make it balanced. Biased editing isn't inherently disruptive.

User:Newaccountfortalkpage should not have been banned. (Unless there's something particularly terrible in the deleted diffs) Merely suggesting that there should be a link to a particular controversial source should not be a bannable offence all by itself.

https://i.imgur.com/6zQu2ne.png

"

Truth is that you have to have a cause to be banned.

Doesn't really matter what it is, political, ideological, just wanting to get some article fixed just right. If you have something people can fight you over, there is chance you will get roasted.

If you just sort of ignore people on the warpath and don't take a stand, then there is very little chance of being banned. AfD is probably the place most people get banned over, but within reason any noticeboard posting carries an element of risk. 😏

"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eiffel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_one_question

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor%27s_index_to_Wikipedia

I don't think editors should be banned for criticising the admins, as it seems Reguyla has, although I haven't read the whole story.

https://tools.wmflabs.org/whodunnit/

“So, we’re doing around 1.4 billion page views monthly. So, it’s really gotten to be a huge thing. And everything is managed by the volunteers and the total monthly cost for our bandwidth is about 5,000 dollars, and that’s essentially our main cost. We could actually do without the employee … We actually hired Brion [Vibber] because he was working part-time for two years and full-time at Wikipedia so we actually hired him so he could get a life and go to the movies sometimes.” ~Jimbo Wales, 2005

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Necrothesp

I think Wikipedia should include information from less reliable sources when high quality sources aren't available, when some information is better than no information.

https://slate.com/technology/2019/03/wikipedia-women-history-notability-gender-gap.html

"But not all article deletions are logically sound. Gender bias on Wikipedia received media attention in 2018 when Donna Strickland won a Nobel Prize in physics and, at the time of her award, did not have a Wikipedia page. The problem wasn’t lack of trying: Before the award, a Wikipedia contributor attempted to create a page for Strickland, but a separate editor declined the article because Strickland had not yet received significant coverage in reliable publications like major newspapers. In retrospect, this seems like a bad ruling. Even before she won the Nobel Prize, Strickland was widely considered a leader in her field."

Library reference desks:

http://library.humboldt.edu/research/ask-librarian.html

AskALibrarian@oclc.org

gethelp@nypl.org

telref@spokanelibrary.org

winill@minlib.net

Santa Clarita?

https://guides.library.ucsc.edu/ask-a-librarian

Saying something isn't "encyclopedic" is a terrible excuse for removing otherwise useful information, and closely resembles "I don't like it.". Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia, and shouldn't be constrained by an otherwise unjustified desire to emulate one.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MarkMyWords/comments/5m55ko/mmw_the_wikipedia_project_is_going_to_be_ruined/

ElePHPhant: It was comical just now when a little donation window slided in from the left even in the menu.

ElePHPhant: I say "comical" because it actually made me chuckle.

ElePHPhant: The humble requests for donations have almost reached malware spam-levels of annoyances.

"a lot of the old guard would probably be indeffed right now if they had to face the same standards, even just for interacting with other editors" ~jc86035, on Discord

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bratsche/Thoughts/Maru

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reasonableness

Reasonable people with good intentions can still disagree over matters of substance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_on_mobile_devices

"It's just so demoralizing when pages you have a strong passion for get deleted..." ~Maplestrip, Wikimedia discord

"It would be really great if someone would invent a new Internet with the specific purpose of not making money off of it, but making it what it originally was, a free marketplace of ideas, and there are still aspects of the Internet that are that. Wikipedia, essentially, is still the bastion of the original ideals of the Internet."

- Todd Rundgren

Compare these two articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murabitun_World_Movement

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Murabitun_World_Movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Expert_retention

"There is, I think, a deep flaw in the philosophical grounding of the whole project, the assumption that 'truth' can somehow emerge through consensus. What emerges-depending on the topic- is a kind of mad Berkeleian world, where ideas struggle for dominance in complete disassociation from physical reality-I shout the loudest, therefore I am!."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nikodemos/Asymmetric_controversy

Pet peeve: when some information is missing from an article, and it's unclear if it's definitively unknown, or just not added yet. Related: One of the reasons I like tables is that it makes clear the omission of information, which I think is something Wikipedia should do a better job of.

[redacted quote]

I think Wikipedia should strive to include information that is useful in the real world, and apparently that's controversial.

Humor


From the talk page of Common cold: "Full disclosure: I currently have a cold. According to the wording of the introduction to this talk page that would disqualify me from posting here. I assume the wording is off."



I'd say my biggest concerns have to do with a desire to bring back more of the spirit of fun, and less of the spirit of rigid authoritarian rules-quoting.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)



"...the AffCom was caught distorting the truth, when not blatantly lying, as it is now, always failing to substantiate their accusations when requested, I do not deem it to be a trustworthy body - and the fact that AffCom was left unchecked and unaccountable for years, even empowered to decide itself its own members, certainly is not alien to this state of affairs. So I'm not presuming good faith on AFfCom as well..." ~ Paulo

I support a notability policy more like that of Wikidata.

I wish we could all just get along... = (


 * This is why we do not retain new editors

My father's father, Joe Ikuta, served in the 442nd Regiment and the Military Intelligence Service.

"As for depression, I tried anti-depressants as well (the first one being Zoloft); my mother thinks that they improved my mental health, and that I wasn't on them long enough to see a big improvement, but I'm convinced that any improvement by taking that so-called medicine was due to the placebo effect. And this, to me, means that there is no cure for my depression. ... in the vast majority of cases, it's not so easy to shrug off. ... Yes, suicide may be selfish. But I query: Is it not just as selfish to ask or force a person to live simply for your sake, when that person is in mental anguish day in and day out? I've told my mother that; it made her cry. But that's how I feel. And when people ask me if I'm doing well or imply that they wonder how I'm doing, I don't like to answer because I'm usually "forced" to state, "I'm okay." or "Doing fine." (such as when on the phone with someone), when that's technically a lie. No one wants to hear about how terrible someone is doing. Too many people don't care, and it makes those same people and many others feel awkward. So lie. And I hate lying." ~ Flyer22

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PCHS-NJROTC

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_epistemology_of_Wikipedia

I have participated in Young Americans for Liberty in the past, although I don't currently, and I mostly don't align with them ideologically.

"Can't we cut each other a little bit of slack? Other people aren't evil because they disagree with us, or because they advocate something that we think would have bad consequences. They aren't stupid because they make arguments we find completely unconvincing." ~Larry Sanger

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_feedback

I dislike the idea that information should be hosted on other wikis because those wikis aren't as good. They can become riddled with ads, go offline, or simply go unnoticed.

"we frequently assume bad faith of long term editors. It is unfortunate." ~ James Heilman

"why is notability still a thing

if someone wants to write about it, let them."

~ VeryGoodDog, Wikimedia Community discord server, May 29, 2019

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tothwolf/rescued_essays/Rule_0

"

Currently enforced with a combination of CIR and NOTHERE blocks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Competence_is_required

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia#Clearly_not_being_here_to_build_an_encyclopedia

The first one is basically "this user isn't doing things how I the admin want them done"

The second more: "This user shouldn't be around because I say so"

Both are entirely open to personal interpretation so can be used to justify almost any conceivable block. And are often used to block people that are just being annoying as far as the admins are concerned.

"

~Dysk, Wikipediocracy discord server

At long last, I have convinced my real life friend, User:Leta May to join Wikipedia!

"I regard myself to be a servant of the community, not the WMF." ~WJBscribe

I think I will probably never be an admin, because I don't always agree with community consensus about matters of policy.

"Why are WMF staffers so deeply, fundamentally disconnected from the communities where they feel the right to ban people for saying "fuck arbcom"?" ~Nathan

"I would like to reserve the right to say "fuck arbcom", "fuck the WMF", or "fuck the admins", just like I deserve the right to say "fuck the police" or "fuck the judiciary system"." ~Martijn Hoekstra

[2019-06-12 06:02:16] #wikipedia-en

 These days I find not making an edit is a reward all by itself.

 It didn't used to be that improving the encyclopaedia was a burden.

 It was fun, it was exciting.

 Like getting to be the guy who started the article on Monkey, to quote someone.

 Oh sure, we had vandals then. Even trolls. But they were honourable in their ways, they were true to their nature. None of this "one good guy against another good guy" stuff. The good guys hung together, the trolls and the vandals we let hang separately.

 Nudge nudge, wink wink. If anyone wants to nominate me into the 15 years wikipedians club, the username is User:Cimon Avaro

RfA criteria: Do you support the actions of Floq, Bishonen, and WJB? Ultimately, does your allegiance lie with the community, or with the WMF? Also, are you open to recall?

"I'm just incredibly saddened by what the WMF has turned itself into. It used to be a minor organization to assist Wikipedia and its sister projects with software development (by paying employees) and server resources, but has ballooned into a nonsensical bureaucracy." ~Reaper Eternal

"I've read the rest of this page and some archives, and you have made great efforts to find material to include in this article, for which you should be commended." ~Begoon

"It is irrefutable that the WMF CEO thinks I am a free, easily replaceable work unit, a cog in the machine that allows her to travel the world.  Those who don't drink the Koolaid are to be mocked. It is irrefutable that the WMF thinks of itself as the Master, and local communities as the Servants.  Complain, and they will find a way to remove you under false pretexts." ~Floquenbeam

"If Fram’s ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no community consultation—represents the WMF’s new strategy for dealing with harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally misaligned with the Wikimedia movement’s principles of openness, consensus, and self-governance." 

"I consider WP:DENY mentality to be based partly on rampant paranoia"

I think Jimbo once said something like, Anyone deserves a fresh start, after six years. Am I remembering correctly?

It's important to respect the community.

http://awa.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Why_we_left

I would like you all to know that I would not be very offended if you insult me, or do other such things.

This user supports the right of editors to maintain legitimate alternate accounts that are not publicly linked, for the sake of privacy, provided they don't use them deceptively, of course.

I think the WMF should focus more (why not all?) development hours on tasks the community actually wants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DecisiveDomination

Also discussed in the discord.

I don't like censoring myself, and I don't like being expected to conform to poorly defined rules.

List of comments I've been asked to remove:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ProtectorOfWorldSaves&diff=910755143&oldid=910751279

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kosack&diff=prev&oldid=904268632

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Valereee&diff=prev&oldid=904268687

Taylor Swift
Today's featured article represents an interesting failure mode in lede-writing. Taylor Swift makes songs. She's a big deal. She's made this song and that song. She's got awards. She's made some albums. She's very important. She makes songs. Nothing intriguing to make me want to continue reading. What are her songs like? Why do people like them? We get all of ten words: "She is known for narrative songs about her personal life". That's something I'd like to hear more about while all the "fifth act overall to win Album of the Year twice" stuff is a total sleeping pill. Haukur (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree. This is a common problem with how Wikipedia articles are written. Benjamin (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

http://wiki.userpedia.net/Eight

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alfie

"I get the impression around here that people think 'blocked' is like a magical spell that transforms a person into something else. It really isn't.  If someone knows how to resolve neutrality issues or can cite BLP standards from memory then they don't forget because they got blocked."

~Darkfrog24, #wikipedia-en, 13 September 2019

https://old.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/d41wu8/discussion_thread/f07o705/?context=100

"Why does this not have 'View history' tab?

I can't even figure out how the fuck to access the article as I wrote it. Honestly, this is one of the most frustrating things I've ever experienced, to pour many hours into something for somebody to delete all traces of it and say 'LOL promotional/non-notable, who cares?' I hate this and hate Wikipedia."

https://psyarxiv.com/9g5wk/

"Citation counts and journal impact factors do not capture research quality in the behavioral and brain sciences"

I just signed up for OpenStreetMap, and you should too.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2019-October/093649.html

"

WMF has been steadily separating itself from the community and loosing credibility as a guiding force. Take a look at the last election -- almost every candidate has said "no" to the question if WMF is capable of deciding/delivering on the direction [1]. In **every** single conversation I had with the community members, people expressed doubts with the movement strategy project, in some cases even treating it as a joke.

This is a huge problem, and restricting wishlist kills the last effective feedback mechanism community had. Now WMF is fully in control of itself, with nearly no checks & balances from the people who created it.

"

"if someone wants to write an article about their high school, we should relax and accomodate them" ~Jimbo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sanctions_against_editors_should_not_be_punitive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:But_I%27m_an_administrator!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_losing_contributors_-_Thinking_about_remedies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:When_in_doubt,_hide_it_in_the_woodwork

"Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all." ~ Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960)


 * }

I work at Ross, but I'm not paid to edit.

http://imgur.com/a/5AnSsIy

Good lord man that is an incredible user page or should I say pages! GRALISTAIR (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

"

can I just give some quick feedback? I wish english wikipedia changed. I think this deletion is a good illustration why I stopped contributing a long time ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_Internet_Relay_Chat_daemons

when I wrote my own IRCd this was hands down one of THE most useful tables of comparison

the one deletion argument that most entries have no own wiki pages is in its own way ridiculous, given one of the most popular demons for smaller networks (there WERE reliable numbers for this from searchirc.com when it still existed, as well as netsplit.de) also was deleted multiple times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InspIRCd

reason being that it's mostly written about by blog tech posts and not literature, but who still writes clunky tech books these days? and what does a book even count given self publishing doesn't even require an editor either, and many tech blogs DO have an editor these days?

I think this whole notability debate is just ruining really amazing niche tech info on wikipedia and dumbing it down, and for what? saving disk space? I don't get it

I would also understand it if the articles were poorly sourced, but 1. InspIRCd wasn't poorly sourced only if you consider well-done tech blogs somehow "evil", 2. the comparison wasn't that terribly badly sourced either (check the retained copy in a user space) and the lack of blue links was mostly because other stuff kept being deleted

it's impossible to work like this in more niche areas, if another article being deleted is being taken as a justification to deny the existence of further ones

and again I wrote IRC backend software and this comparison page was incredibly useful to me

anyway, that was my entire rant. not sure if anyone cares

since that happened I just basically stopped doing anything but a really minor edit every 2 years ish

(also feel free to copy&paste my rant wherever. thanks to anyone who cared to read it)

"

~couchkitten, #wikipedia-en, 1 September 2020

"The thing I have noticed is when the anecdotes and the data disagree, the anecdotes are usually right. There's something wrong with the way you are measuring it," ~Jeff Bezos

Wikipedia's inability to improve its own governance is appalling.

"Far too often people take the dictum of verifiability, not truth too far by presuming that if a reliable source can be found to make the claim then it is ok for Wikipedia to say it in the editorial voice. Usually this occurs because of an editor's own bias seeping into his or her editing process. At times because there is an absence of contravening sources editors similarly feel confident in using stronger language than that of their sources. However, I believe this goes against an unspoken rule that Wikipedia should always strive for factual accuracy. I seek to counter the systemic bias that often works its way into contentious topic areas in pursuit of the greater truth. That means using the most neutral wording the sources support and, save for "sky is blue"-type situations, in-text attribution should be the norm. The goal is making the project a place to find the whole story with eyes unclouded by prejudice, contrary to the more controlled sources of information in the world." ~The Devil's Advocate

The above template is copied from User:Iridescent.

Article titles that are adjectives: Transgender, Intersex, Critically Endangered, Extinct in the wild, Indigenous (ecology), Sacred, Non-denominational.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/713933420597608469/835613541578178630/Screen_Shot_2021-04-24_at_4.29.27_PM.png

Trashberg is real journalism.

https://archivebox.io/

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/520715767248060416/869120480953638942/Screen_Shot_2021-07-26_at_3.34.07_AM.png

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ketchup-packet-savers-squeeze-them-for-profits-11618412629#refreshed

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/520715767248060416/870230208748331048/Screen_Shot_2021-07-29_at_5.03.48_AM.png

"Without doxxing myself or sounding too self important, I've given a few interviews to journalists before, and been disappointed with the way they got facts subtly wrong in the resultant story, that made it pretty obvious they weren't familiar with the subject matter at all. And then the general public reads those stories and takes them as cold, hard facts. If it happened to me, probably happens a lot."

Someone wants to know about say Senteg. Granted, only 18 people have in the last three months. Possibly because it's in Nowhere, Russia and the population is 51. Still, 18 people. They're real. They count. What is the value of telling these people "Sorry, we had this information, with a ref, categorized with it's sisters in Category:Rural localities in Udmurtia, but we decided we don't want you people to have too much information. Sucks to be you, but good luck and maybe you can find the info somewhere else -- you never know!" ~ Herostratus

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1516427215772307476

>But today we have too much uncanny valley stuff, takes that are structured as news stories often through the alchemy of "experts say."

I notice this a lot in Wikipedia articles about controversial subjects. Editors skirt the neutrality policy by framing the perspectives through "reporting".

"Imo a lot of people make the mistake of associating formalism - "university", "credentials", "sciencey terminology" - with being a good study. I think this is dangerously misleading - the quality of a lot of published research from people with "credentials" is really poor - e.g. the entire replication crisis. Really you should be looking at the process and data directly, yourself - whether or not the person behind it is credentialed or not should be completely irrelevant to your direct evaluation of how good the research is." ~AellaGirl

4chan is of utmost historical and cultural importance and it's a downright travesty that the archives have been destroyed.

https://twitter.com/AnarchOnion/status/1680731592958803968

"wikipedia is fun because due to its structure it has given unilateral epistemic control of the world's foremost oublically accessible collection of knowledge to the most autistic people alive"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Using_maps_as_sources

This is an example of the ridiculous arguments made against original research.

"Rambot was not wholly uncontroversial. Some people felt it was “cruft” — a term-of-art that I’m told means something other than “I don’t like this”, but no one can agree what." 

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Dre3LFGrnXzrecF5E/wikipedia-is-not-so-great-and-what-can-be-done-about-it

"The press is a lossy and biased compression of events in the actual world, and is singularly consumed with its own rituals, status games, and incentives. The news necessarily fails to capture almost everything which happened yesterday. What it says is important usually isn't."