User:Cryptic C62/Thoughts

Hi there. I've seen several pages on which editors list their thoughts on Wikipedia and how we do stuff. Some of what I've read is, in my opinion, overly critical (cough cough). Suck it up, strap on your boots, and do the work. Whining is not productive, nor is making big bold statements about how Wikipedia is bound to fail. No, my thoughts are somewhat more optimistic and focused on how you (the contributor) can do better work.

1. Earning stars: We are not in the business of generating Featured Articles. We are in the business of creating the best possible encyclopedia, comprised of the best possible articles. This has two implications:


 * 1a. When working on an article, there may be times when, as the primary researcher, you will be more aware of flaws in the article than your colleagues. Sometimes this may be a simple discrepancy between sources that you have been unable to resolve, though sometimes the problem, though hidden, runs much deeper. When this happens, if a collaborator, uninvolved editor, or the devil on your shoulder approaches you and suggests that you should nominate the article for FA status, you should not go through with it! By merely nominating an article, you are saying "To the best of my knowledge and ability, this is the best possible article for this topic." If you know that this isn't the case, you are lying by nominating the article. It is much better to take on the long, arduous (sometimes impossible) task of resolving the underlying problems with the article than to try to earn a star, whereby we are endorsing what you know to be imperfect content.


 * 1b. When an article is at FAC, you may receive feedback (or edits) that you don't agree with. Sometimes, as is often the case with technical language, this is merely the result of the reviewer not being as familiar with the terminology or sources as you are; this is easily resolved. Other times, the reviewer will firmly believe that what they say is right, regardless of your attempts to convince them otherwise. When an FAC reviewer suggests something that you know will harm the article, don't listen! And don't resign from the project like a little drama queen, either. Continue to abstain, even if it means the article doesn't earn the bronze star. Again, as in 1a, producing the best possible article is more important than earning the star.

2. What to do? Editors, including myself, often have several distinct ongoing projects and interests at the same time. I have often wondered what is the best way to determine which of those projects should be given priority over the others. I have come up with several logical lines of thought in that regard:


 * 2a. You should work on those areas of Wikipedia for which you possess the necessary skills or tools which others might not. As an example, if you are a skilled programmer and are aware of a deficiency in Wikipedia that would benefit from a bot or two, it certainly makes sense that you should devote the majority of your time to the crafting of such a bot. I feel that the more specialized or advanced your skillset, the more applicable this line of thought becomes. Having a fast internet connection and good vision hardly qualify as reasons to devote more time to Recent Changes Patrol than to article writing, though both are necessary and good.


 * 2b. You should work on those areas of Wikipedia which are in most urgent need of contributors. If Wikipedia is to be thought of as a large machine, keep in mind that if any one component is not properly maintained and serviced, the whole machine will slow down. FAC, for example, is currently in dire need of reviewers, a task which does not require any specialized skills. Contributing there would be, by this line of thought, significantly more beneficial to the project as a whole than to the Interwiki Link Checker, even though you may be a top-notch translator.


 * 2c. You should work on those areas of Wikipedia which you most enjoy. It is no secret that prolific editors have a nasty habit of getting burnt out and leaving the project. If you truly despise participating in those areas which the previous two lines of thought might lead you to, don't bother, for it seems quite logical to assume that a good way to prevent (or at least delay) burning out would be to stick to those things that you really truly enjoy. Besides, you probably won't be doing your best work if you find yourself doing the things you really truly hate.


 * 2d. You should work on those areas which are most visible to readers. As much fun as we have romping about and jabbering like idiots, we must bear in mind that our ultimate goal is to serve the readers. Yes, without bot builders, tasks become slower. Without intelligent RfA !voters, SPAs and trolls may have tools they shouldn't. Without mediators, editors may get fed up and leave. Without content editors, however, the encyclopedia becomes useless, and it wouldn't even matter if we had the other workers or not.

As far as I can tell, there is no single 'best' activity you can participate in. The 'best' solution is to not worry too much about the priority you give your activities, but to simply keep these four ideas in mind. I am, however, an advocate of continuing to work on articles regardless of what else is going on.

3. Flaws. People can argue endlessly over Wikipedia's strengths and weaknesses, but I think there is one thing we can all agree on: One of Wikipedia's incredible strengths is the fact that its flexibility allows us to learn from the weaknesses. People can prattle all they want about how such and such is bad for Wikipedia or for society or for teh interwebs, but when it becomes clear that something really wrong has happened (the names Essjay, RickK and Seigenthaler come to mind), we can change things to correct the wrongness that was done and prevent it from happening again. This, however, is only true when we are aware of Wikipedia's flaws. This has two implications:


 * 3a. Expose flaws. Consider a walled community. In this walled community, all of the entrances are guarded. All criminals are swiftly punished or ousted. As safe and secure as this fortress may be, the guards would be able to deter much more criminal activity by examining the outside of the community to find weaknesses rather than simply trying to protect it from within. Wikipedia is that community, and we are the guards. We should use our intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the community to try to find and, more importantly, expose its flaws. In the rare situation in which someone actually finds a severe flaw which might be exploited, it is tempting to think that we would be better off just trying to hide it. If no one knows about the crack in the community's wall, no one will try to slip through it, right? Wrong. We must always assume that some malicious party has already found and exploited the flaw without being detected. If we try to hide the flaw from the public eye, those malicious parties will continue to exploit the flaw with no repercussions. If we expose the flaw, even if such exposure causes more people to try to exploit it, we will be better equipped to fend them off. We can only make changes and improve Wikipedia if we know about problems. Thus, we must all be willing to expose flaws, even if it involves making enemies or even getting banned.


 * 3b. Remember. If a user is blocked for activity that they believe is right, or if a user leaves because they disagree with the actions of others in the community, it is both the privilege and the duty of that user to make it clear to others why this happened. As such, anyone who has contributed here should, upon leaving or being ousted, edit their user page or talk page to explain why. This will help us to learn from our mistakes and retain a more diverse and complete perspective on Wikipedia's weaknesses.