User:Mediathink



Me in a word: Gadfly_%28social%29

Useful pages:

 * Policies and guidelines
 * Special:Newpages
 * Special:Specialpages
 * Image_copyright_tags
 * Neutral_point_of_view
 * Biographies_of_living_persons
 * Cite_sources
 * Wikicite
 * Attribution
 * Conflict_of_interest
 * The_perfect_article
 * WikiProject_Business_and_Economics
 * Companies%2C_corporations_and_economic_information
 * Reward_board
 * 10_things_you_did_not_know_about_images_on_Wikipedia
 * Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from enterprise)
 * Avoid_peacock_terms
 * Template:Cite_book
 * Suggestions for COI compliance
 * my favorite Wikipedia essay


 * free

=Worthy of Repetition=

Netoholic's Law
As a wiki discussion grows longer, the probability of an accusation by one user of another acting unilaterally approaches one.

Corollary
One can substitute any of the following for "unilaterally", and the law still works -- "against consensus", "mindlessly", "carelessly". Any of these words indicates you might be facing off against a wiki-warrior.

Other (stolen) wisdom

 * The opposite of deletionism is not inclusionism; rather, the opposite is contribution.

In other words, if you do something and justify it with IAR, you are implicitly acknowledging that there are rules.
 * Ignore all rules is a paradox. One is expressly failing to "ignore all rules" by citing WP:IAR.


 * There are people who have good sense. There are idiots. A consensus of idiots does not override good sense. Wikipedia is not a democracy.


 * Morrissey: "There's always someone, somewhere with a big nose, who knows... who trips you up and laughs When you fall"


 * "So, if Wikipedia is such a popular site, and anyone can add an article, shouldn't savvy PR folks proactively submit an article about their organization or client? Well… maybe. The Wikipedia community takes several concepts very seriously. First, an article topic should only be submitted if it has broad enough appeal to be in a normal encyclopedia. Second, all information should be independently verifiable from external sources. And, finally, all articles should strictly adhere to a "neutral point of view," representing views "fairly and without bias." This is considered an inviolable principle, and articles that show a disregard for the neutral point of view rule will be quickly removed or edited by other users."


 * "Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies (Neutral_point_of_view, Attribution, No original research) are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles".

Egads!

simple:User:Mediathink Mediathink 19:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)