User:ImTheIP/ThoughtsOnWikipedia


 * Truer words were never spoken. I have been here for 3 years, and I feel as though I have just begun to get a grip on the morass of policy in the handful of areas where I most commonly edit. To me, editing feels like a deadly video game were partisan gangs try to kill you as you wander through an uncharted swamp without a compass trying to avoid the arcane booby-traps that editors set to get you banned. --E.M.Gregory

QFT!

Rules
There are to many rules. Especially the 500/30 rule is insane. Rules attract rules lawyers. Wikipedia has a rule called "assume good faith." Which has been used to accuse people with "You didn't assume good faith, you broke the rule!" Recursive rule breaking madness.

Hah! I wrote that many years ago. The 500/30 rule is awesome. If anything, it should be changed to 5000/300.

Voting
Many editors appear to be voting according to party lines. I'm noticing that a system called RFC is beginning to replace debates. For example, a user who disagrees with a more knowledgeable user can set up an RFC, get a few supporters on his side to vote "Yes." The C in RFC stands for comments but you don't get comments, only drive-by votes.

I don't know what the alternative is. I think good arguments should beat bad arguments. One person who can skillfully argue their position should beat someone who can't. On the other hand, marathon debates should be discouraged. Some people never give up.

Dispute resolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

The process almost seem to be set up for failure. Or rather, to trap the accused. It seem like the only winning move if you are the target of a "dispute resolution process" is to not comment. Everything you write can, and will, be held against you.

Articles about live events
Like the 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting. I don't know... I think there should be some grace period before articles are written about current events with fatalities.