User:Master Jay/comments

Jean Chrétien
Submitted 21:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC) I am not one to share personal stories on anything but today I had a nightmare that Jean Chrétien had been killed in an airplane accident. I am no psychic, or at least I don't claim to be, however, if somehow some unfortunate turn of events were to happen, I want my premonition to be stated in an open place, where it is timestamped and available for public view, as a record of what I have seen.

Michael Jackson
Submitted 07:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Shock
I shake my head is disbelief. Legendary entertainer Michael Jackson died suddenly Wednesday afternoon around 2:30 PM PDT in Los Angeles, California, after succumbing to cardiac arrest. I, like many, have trouble registering this in my mind. I find this event to be surreal. Everyone dies someday, but you could never imagine now, and definitely not like this. Maybe 40 years from now, that sort of thing. When I read he was ill earlier in the day, I presumed he would be hospitalized. When I later got to a television, I knew without looking that the breaking news could only be one thing, and I was in shock. It happened so fast. If someone were to tell me even a year ago that Michael Jackson would die so young, of all people, no offense Walter Cronkite, Ariel Sharon, Elizabeth Taylor, half the people on 60 minutes, I would say to that nonsense. But here we are today and look at what has happened.

Retrospect
The “King of Pop”, Jackson's historic career, which spanned four decades, from signature performances in the Jackson Five of the sixties, to the epic anthems of the eighties and nineties, left an imprint on the minds and hearts of many people around the world, through song, performance, showmanship, and ubiquitous imagery, symbols, sounds, and dance. His act influenced many and changed the landscape of music and popular entertainment forever. Hits like “Thriller” are a fixture of music history.

Controversy
As with most things, there is that other side which Michael Jackson is known for. In the last decade, Michael Jackson is infamous for his sideshow baby dangling and accusations of child molestation amongst other things in his private life. Be that as it may, one cannot diminish the better days of his exceptional career. By no means am I an expert, but it is safe to speculate that his highly publicized private life off stage invariably contributed to his failing health and untimely death.

Reaction
A somber day in the music industry, Jackson's work will forever be etched in the annals of popular culture. After living in obscurity more recently, and set to go on a fifty show finale, the news of his untimely death broke suddenly and spread around the world instantly. In this digital age, per custom, the entire popular sphere comprising the web, television, news sites, and radio was covered by news of his passing, and pictures and sounds from a plethora of archives commemorating his life. Tributes poured in from everyone in the industry, fans around the world, and the media outlets. Madonna, Cher, Celine Dion, and Snoop Dogg, to name a few, released statements and phoned in to shows like Larry King, each of those artists hugely successful and well known in their own right. There are scenes of people gathering in the streets, mourning. Things like this you remember for the rest of your life. There have been dozens of popes and presidents, baseball players and Olympians, rock bands and actresses, but only one Michael Jackson. This very thing is comparable in my lifetime to the death of Princess Diana. One minute they are alive and larger than life, the next, they are gone. The news today was unexpected, sudden, and took many people aback. There was only one Michael Jackson, and at this moment in history, we can take a look back to celebrate the music, and the larger than life thrill in the performances and music videos, all staples of our popular culture.

Legacy
He will without a doubt be remembered forever for his music, shows, and signature dance moves. 1980s legendary music superstar, the “King of Pop” has left this earth. But the memory, the sound, song and dance, the sensation lives on. Michael Jackson: the man, the music, the career. An era has come to an end indeed. Move over Beethoven, Elvis, Sinatra, make room for Michael Jackson. Legends live on.

The web on the news
Submitted 20:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When I joined the project three and a half years ago, events which took place on the web usually stayed on the web. Now it seems that events which take place on the web make it onto mainstream television. There are many examples of this happening.


 * Whenever a tragic event takes place, you will almost always find that the news sites or television news reports will reference a social networking site group. Or in general, any time someone starts a social networking group on something they don't like or is semi-newsworthy, it will get picked up by some news outlet somewhere. You know why this happens? Because people who are working in newsrooms sit on their computers all day and use social networking sites when they should be reporting on more substantial topics. Publication bans are virtually impossible given the nature of the web. What's next? Someone writing a live journal while performing jury duty?


 * There seems to be three distinct groups of people who participate online. There are the programmers, who understand the infrastructure which goes into this thing called "the Internet". These folks know the workings of websites, the programming langauges, standards, the hardware requirements, the business models. Then there are the users, the people who visit the shiny new website or forum and utilize the tools which have been put in place by the programmers. Some users are more advanced than others. Then you have the observers; people who see what has been created, how people are using it, and say to themselves, isn't that neat, and make a report in a local newspaper. But what I can't stand the most is nonsense like a dancing fool making its way onto my nightly news. Or reporters mentioning their blogs. Is there so little news in the mainstream media that they must consult the web medium for content to report on? The next video that gets onto cable news will prove my point.


 * - a CBC report on this new invention, "Internet." Funny in retrospect.
 * - The Simpson's, Homer internet king.

Beggars can't be choosers.

Users with an agenda
Submitted 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Most wheel wars start on Wikipedia because there a few users with an agenda. They have made their edits, and are not willing to compromise or even be considerate of another's viewpoint. NPOV aside, this can include technicalities like page redirects, categories, or even article structure - not the kind of stuff you would think arguments could erupt from.
 * I won't name names or give any examples, but all I have to say is this - talk it out, and good things will come. Cite guidelines to reinforce your stance, not defend it (which would mean rebutting with another guideline or policy). And most importantly, admit your mistakes. There is no better way to waste time than to argue like an airhead over a comma splice.

Benoit family tragedy/Wikipedia article controversy
Submitted 03:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again Wikipedia has made it into the headlines. The story this time is that before the death of wrestler Chris Benoit & family was discovered by police, an anonymous user had posted Benoit's wife had died, hours before the bodies were even found. The inexplicable edit was discovered by another user, probably searching through diffs, and eventually made its way into the IRC backrooms, the noticeboard, Wikinews made an article about it, and then it made the world headlines (as a side note, Fox News did an "exclusive" story on it, without citing Wikinews as the source).
 * There are two components to this story. Firstly, the leak itself, which is now a matter of a police investigation, and second off, the discovery of this edit by the community, which is well documented at the talk page here. There is also a good deal of stuff, including a sharp rebuttal by Bawolff to some irrelevant ramblings here.


 * To summarize, wrestler Chris Benoit & family were found dead, believed to be a double-murder suicide. This was leaked by an anon hours before the cops even knew about it - the person behind this has now been taken into questioning by the police. News about the leak circulated around Wikipedia and Wikinews, and the story of the early death notice hit mainstream press yesterday - it is unlikely that users who made the discovery will be the subject of any investigation.


 * I am sure this will go down in Wikipedia history as one of the most bizarre stories ever. What makes it even more interesting is that all the conversations and logs of the events as they happened are stored in the histories, some of which are being used in the criminal investigation. From a historical viewpoint, this is probably the first time evidence for a criminal investigation made it on to Wikipedia, prior to it being made mainstream, once again garnering widespread attention for the encyclopedia - I don't think Britannica has seen as many controversies.

Comments are welcome
 * There probably have been several postings made on websites about crimes hours before they were discovered by police, meaning 21st century police work now includes searching the web for clues. And who said Wikipedia wasn't a crystal ball.

Lead names!
Submitted 00:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC) (UTC)
 * I cannot stand articles with a lead that looks like Robert "Bob" Smith. In attempting to look more sophisticated, it just looks plain stupid. I recently consulted the manual of style for guidance, but the section on biography leads is ambiguous at best. The most ridiculous one which I have seen would have to be the Joseph "Joe"... lead. We need a policy - lets use the name on the subject's birth certificate, or at least what we think the name on their birth certificate should look like. Obviously, legal name changes, etc, would be considered also. Enough of this Christopher "Chris" nonsense. Who's with me on this?

Essjay
Submitted 19:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For starters, I don't know how many people actually read my commentary, furthermore, by now I am sure we've all had our spiel about the Essjay controversy. Here is my take on the matter.
 * When I heard about what had transpired, it took me by surprise. I, like many others, believed what I had read on his userpage. It is unfortunate that the identity he created got the best of him, and in an ironic twist, ultimately led to his demise and exposure of identity. I am not defending what he did, but I can understand why he did it. I imagine that one thing led to another, and it was too late to turn back. He eventually did come out, but the damage was already done.
 * I am not sure if this has happened before on Wikipedia, but certainly the fallout is something we've never seen before. Any controversy involving any prominent member of the community is sure to create a buzz, however, what is unexpected is the international press that this has attained. It is not like he was a quack neurosurgeon, who could have potentially killed someone! Nonetheless, this case has set a precedent when it comes to fabricating details about who you really are. I suspect a few others may have to come clean in light of the recent events.
 * I will always remember Essjay for the great effort and time he put into Wikipedia. In my brief conversations with him, I always found him to be approachable, respectable, and overall a good fellow to deal with. He was always there to answer questions, and I appreciate the tremendous work that he put into the project.
 * In my opinion, credentials are important, especially when asked upon to weigh in on an article that needs expert advice. However, the question remaining from all of this is whether or not credentials made a difference in terms of his various promotions. Would a self-admitted college dropout gain prominence and recognition in a large community? Who knows.

Enough with the tags!
Submitted 05:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a growing problem with taggers – users who add large box tags to the beginning of articles, hoping that some poor soul will come along and fix it, leaving a mess in the meantime. It just doesn't work – use the talk page instead. If the article has significant flaws, whether it be missing citations, style, and so forth, initiate a discussion on the talk page, and work it out from there. Adding a large tag that takes up a third of the screen reduces article neatness, adds quite a bit to the server load (when multiplied by a few hundred thousand), and it won't get anything done. If an article requires improvement, do what you can do to fix it, then perhaps ask for assistance on the talk page – please do not continue to add a huge tag and expect the problems to go away. Its time to stop passing the buck people!
 * Tags, when used accordingly, are effective in directing help to where it's needed most. All I am saying is that the specifics of what needs to be done can be placed on the talk page instead. If anything, we'd be better off placing the tags on the talk page in the first place, which would keep the article free of clutter, while still keeping it marked for improvement.
 * The same thing goes for protection tags – when a user clicks "edit," the large disclaimer box in the edit window is pretty self explanatory. An eyesore of a protected tag placed at the top of an article, especially when it is popular, adds on to the problem. People aren't stupid - of course when it says (after clicking the edit button) "you are unable to edit because the page is protected..." you know you're unable to edit. An annoying tag at the top of the article really isn't necessary.
 * Enough with the tags!

On Article quality etc
Submitted 15:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * When browsing through the unpopular articles, I find that some are written pretty well, and then others are written sounding like your next door neighbour is talking to you. What I'm trying to get at here is that the less popular an article is, the more likely it is going to need a tag on it. I never thought that I'd have to say this, but here it goes: not every single reader knows where New Jersey is. (all apologies to anyone from New Jersey) If you're editing an article, remember that it will be read by everyone around the world, not just your friends across the street. My reference to New Jersey is to illustrate that details about a person or place should have country information; use words like United States, American, or even USA, for example. Same applies to other people or places in different countries. Why am I very concerned you might ask? Well, until recently, I had no clue where West Yorkshire was. However, I know where the United Kingdom is - if an article said that someone was from West Yorkshire, and omitted important country details, it would be confusing. Now I know this isn't the case for all articles, however, the ones that are fairly unpopular are often neglected, and lack basic details.
 * Not everyone here has a degree in English. In fact, what makes Wikipedia great is that anyone with the will to edit an article is able to, and I encourage it. Nonetheless, I notice that there is a wide gap between good articles and crummy stubs in terms of prose. As I said before, I am not worried about featured articles and other ones of good quality. I am only worried about the other one million or so. I won't provide specific examples, however, in recent weeks, I have found myself repairing leads, amongst other things, to improve a handful of articles. I find that some articles are very poorly written, just in terms of flow and style. I also find that others are written by PhD students, who forget that not everyone reading the article has a degree in chemical engineering. I personally like the way How Stuff Works is written, because it gives a full picture of the subject in question, even the reader is a novice. Those of you out there that edit to achieve so-so quality should be aiming for an FA. For others, who include every last technical detail, remember that not everyone will understand it.

On Featured Articles etc
Submitted 18:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that FA's are a good thing. However, I also believe that the process in which we choose featured articles is in desperate need of an overhaul. Highly visible articles, i.e. articles that appear within the first page of a search engine query, should be our finest work. Period. An organized drive should be made to achieve the following: There are only seven continents - there should be a drive to make them featured; Every country should be a featured article; Every capital city of every country should be a featured article. On the one hand, there are well written articles that happen to be featured, and then there are articles, maybe not so well written, that need to be of featured article quality.
 * The purpose of an article: Is the article on a recent news event, or a historical event. Is the article on a person, a place, or a thing? Some articles are designed to educate and inform, while others serve as a sespool for heated debate. Most of us know who George W. Bush is, so is there really a need to fight over how you define him? Besides the point, an article on a shopping mall should have directions, an article on a website should have links. What makes Wikipedia different from a paper encyclopedia is that at any time, we can go in and change it. So nothing is really set in stone.
 * The purpose of a featured article: To highlight our best work. Wikipedia is no Britannica, however, it is a great success when everyday contributors can put together an informative, quality, piece of work. To turn one sentence, that has a few errors in it, to a quality article, even better than Britannica , is a good thing.
 * The rush to make an article featured is problematic. Take the Microsoft article for example – it had a "wordy" lead, which was only corrected after it was featured and on the main page.
 * Standards: Every living person article should have a lead that is identical. Name (birthday in place) is a(n) [country] [what they are].