User:Bixlives!/sandbox

WIKIPEDIA: THEY SHOOT HORSES, DON'T THEY?

Before Wikipedia receives a single dollar (much less 10 million dollars), it needs a thorough overhaul. I propose that the entire current controlling hierarchy clique of personnel be replaced immediately. And still this may not be enough to save this particular Wikipedia. The Concept of Wiki is grand and will prosper. Because this was the first successful Wiki, people seem to think it is a sacred cow. It is no such animal. It has become a bureaucratic maze of unfriendly paths that tend to repel legitimate contributors rather than attract new and enthusiastic contributors.

Even if the leading personnel of Wikipedia were suddenly changed, it would require a solid year to see if the new Wikipedia would fly. If a person or group could be found to remove the parasitic clique element of this organisation and create a friendlier, easy to negotiate environment, I think THIS version of a Wikipeda might be saved. As is, however, the entries are so dry and idiotically pseudo-scientific (even articles on art) that the phrase "they shoot horses, don't they?" keeps running through my head like a tape-loop-mantra.

As is, I am leaning towards wanting to to see THIS version of a Wikipedia transformed into a more reasonable Wikipedia over a period of about a year. This Wikipedia has much information of great worth, yet much of it is written in a passive, officious and inane style. The requirements on citation, annotations, etc. are absurdly over-bearing and serve only to prevent good material from being published and slow the article creation time to a crawl. If you read any old encyclopaedia Britannica volume, you will notice that it reads far easier and faster. This is because they were professionally written and edited. This is not possible with a Wiki and such a short-coming should be accepted and celebrated as the natural element of a Wiki. Of course, rules against slander, personal reference without approval and a standard guide to good encyclopaedia writing should be strictly enforced. However, requiring citations or links on every noun is abusive and simply dumb.

A colleague once told me that prose written in the passive sounds more official. I responded, that she was confusing official with OFFICIOUS. In either case, it is not the goal of any well written encyclopaedia to sound "official", let alone dry. I am not suggesting the writing style be free-form poetry, or in fact, any one style, but as informative and communicative as the language and the individual’s training will allows. Such writing will vary markedly from entry to entry. This is part of what makes the idea of a WIKI so attractive. Of course, there will be entries that are indecipherable or abusive. Common sense is how such things are dealt with –NOT officious rules and a political hierarchy clique that the user is required to master before publication can be achieved.

The world and it information now move far faster than in 1900. WIKI is a wonderful development for getting a handle on the world's information and affording the 'little guy' a means for accessing the information and even contributing information. As Wikipedia is now organised and operating, I am afraid they have "jumped the shark", and are rendering themselves irrelevant. Eventually, human nature and the disease of self rot will finish off THIS Wikipedia. If this occurs, it will be a shame, but unless something is done fairly fast, it is the fate of Wikipedia.

15 October 2012