User:Piledhigheranddeeper

(a newbie, whom I do not resent)

I can write, and I can spell, but I can't type! (Luckily, I usually catch my own typos, but—ahem—not always.)

Other details when I get the time, maybe.

Bit by bit, I'm coming back from a Wiki-break. The edit wars, turf battles, and sometimes just-plain nastiness soured me on Wikipedia for a while, but I'm recovering. First, I largely restricted myself to correcting the likes of misplaced apostrophes or flaming misspellings, but now I'm editing for content again....

*****GOT HACKED****** I was spoofed, and then this account was hacked, about 10:10 pm on October 13 (02:10 on 10/14 UT) (2009). Let this be a warning to all of us! *********************

OK, I have learned that I've leaped many ranks up in the all-time list of biggest editors. I didn't realize just what I was doing, and I wonder what they would say at the office...sorry, guys. Anyhow, I'm going to (try to) concentrate more on significantly improving a smaller number of articles. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

and thus...

Misuse of the apostrophe
It’s is not, it isn’t ain’t, and it’s it’s, not its, if you mean it is. If you don’t, it’s its. Then too, it’s hers. It isn’t her’s. It isn’t our’s either. It’s ours, and likewise yours and theirs. —Oxford University Press, Edpress News

It's also not used for plurals, or whenever the hell you feel like it. —Bob the Angry Flower

(One exception: an apostrophe may be used in a plural of an abbreviation if omitting the apostrophe would lead to confusion. For example, Oakland, California, has a professional baseball team known as the A's (short for Athletics); calling them the As would make it look like they are an adverb or conjunction.)

Clear? —ph&d

Writing for a narrow audience
Folks, this is a worldwide encyclopedia, and as such should be written so that anybody in the world (with a decent command of English) can understand it. Using abbreviations without explaining them, or assuming that people know something (and therefore not telling what you mean), is antithetical to the Wikipedia mission. Therefore, editors, don't assume that people know about New York City neighborhoods (and mention them without saying you're talking about NYC), or what a U.K. grid reference means, or say "Highway [number]" without saying what kind of highway (national? provincial? county? which one?) or the significance of some jargon—explain! If a building is "listed", that could mean it's listed for demolition, or for sale, or as a historic site—tell us which! Similarly, "WA" can mean Washington state, or Western Australia, or Western Airlines, or any of a large quantity of other things. If in doubt, spell it out! Justifying an abbreviation or unexplained jargon by saying it's in conformity with the practices of some collection of people, or the such-and-such association, or the whatever handbook, is simply justifying making an article appeal to those in the know, and not people who aren't. Many reference works are for people "on the inside"; Wikipedia is for everybody, even those who are "out". Note that this doesn't mean never use abbreviations or jargon, just spell them out or explain them the first time you use them.

Inferior references
As a general rule, it seems to me that using an inferior reference is better than using none at all. To be sure, we'd prefer to have the best reference available for any assertion, but sometimes, that's just not available right now. It seems that a cite to a less authoritative source should be used. After all, there's even an individual flag for such cites: gives. Put that after the secondary-reference cite, and go look for a better one! Don't simply delete the sentence!

Secondly, what is an acceptable reference would depend on the fact sought to be supported. A statement as to the exact polar diameter of the Earth should come from a solid scientific source (preferably more than one). A statement that there is controversy on a particular topic, especially if the topic isn't at the forefront of intellectual discussion, might be perfectly adequately supported by a couple of references to message boards.

Common knowledge
A number of times, people have responded to my flagging uncited statements or passages by saying, in substance, that the subject matter is common knowledge and thus doesn't need a citation. While the basic premise (common knowledge doesn't need a reference) is true, it's remarkable to me what some people seem to think is "common knowledge" (e.g., "common knowledge from basic university level mechanical engineering textbooks", as one correspondent put it). You'd think that "common knowledge" means "well, my close friends know it." But to return to an earlier point, Wikipedia is supposed to be for everybody, not just black belts in movie trivia or engineering. As a quick rule of thumb, if your grandmother doesn't know it, it's not common knowledge.

Finding references
Curiously, there appears to be a set of editors who believe that it's A-OK to lob uncited passages into an article and then, when somebody else points out that citations are needed, take the position that if that editor thinks a passage needs a source, it is up to that editor to find and insert one. Some have accused me of "tag-bombing" for pointing out these uncited statements. To borrow a passage from another, "Other editors have no obligation to figure out if and how your unsourced additions can be sourced."

Verbosity
I know that wordiness has a connection with education and importantness, but it's foolish to load down an encyclopedia (or other writing) with extra verbiage. It's almost always better to use a simpler phrasing (as long as it means the same thing). A few examples:

"due to the fact that" should be "because"

"utilize". . . "use"

"of all time". . . "since 1900" (or 1950, etc., or even "in history"). Did you notice how pompous that "of all time" accolade is? Like we who are alive today can judge the musicians of the Baroque era, the actors of the Victorian era, etc., despite never having seen or heard them. (It's often telling to note the date of the earliest item appearing on one of those "of all time" lists.)

"one of the only". . . "one of the few" —this one seems to be new, and it's a self-contradiction: "only" means that there is one (they even start with the same letters). "One of the" means that there are several of whatever they are. The two don't go together.

Justifications for errors in fiction
It is remarkable to me what logical gymnastics some people go through when faced with factual errors in works of fiction. Some will go so far as to posit that there is an alternative universe just like this one, except that cholera is a lung condition, to cite an example used recently. Um, no. First, there is only one universe, by definition. Second, and more importantly, people in works of fiction make mistakes, just like everyone else. Misdiagnosis of a person beset with coughing is indeed possible in fiction, as it is in real life—no "alternative universe" needed.

Over-picturing
Some editors appear to follow the "local teeveenews" approach to article illustrations: if a picture has even the smallest, threadiest connection with an article, put it in. No matter that the plane in the picture isn't the one mentioned in the article about the crash; or the one the article's subject flew briefly in a war long before he did what he's famous for, or is even painted the same way, it's a picture! And don't forget to load yet another photo amid the pix of St. Paul's from every imaginable angle, either! You'd think Wikipedia was a coffee-table book, not an encyclopedia!

Glaring omissions
I have been struck by some of the amazing omissions from a number of Wikipedia articles. For example, a number of biographical articles have nothing about the subject's early life: where and when he was born, his parents' names, what school(s) he attended, who (if anyone) he married, etc. These are important facts, and leaving them out creates a huge hole in the article. Indeed, it can look like the author simply didn't bother to include or even research those facts (particularly if the article depends heavily on a single source). To be sure, there are people whose origins really are a mystery, but if that is the case, the article should just say so.

One-sentence paragraphs
I am also struck by the number of one-sentence paragraphs appearing in Wikipedia. Often, there is a whole section of these misbegotten wonders, and they have little or nothing to do with one another—certainly no coherent organization. Sometimes, the entire article has no paragraph longer than one (often run-on) sentence. It's almost as if everybody contributed one sentence, lobbed it into the article at random, and walked away. Maybe it's time for a small English composition lesson.


 * A paragraph is a collection of sentences organized around an idea. This idea is expressed in the paragraph's topic sentence, which almost always appears at the beginning or the end of the paragraph (the topic sentence of this paragraph is the first one).  If the topic sentence is the first in the paragraph, the other sentences build on it and/or support it with examples, anticipation of counter-argument, etc.  If the topic sentence comes at the end of the paragraph, the other sentences build up to it, like the climax of a (very short) story.  For this reason, one-sentence paragraphs are the antithesis of good explanatory writing.  I know, I know, you see them in newspapers (when you see newspapers), dialogue, etc.  But this is an encyclopedia, and we need to write better than that.

Ownership
OK, I get it. Wikipedia is dominated by a self-selected group of enthusiasts, many of whom are quite doctrinaire about what they believe, and the best way to express it. That being said, I am struck by the number of reverts (overt or covert) that are justified—if they are justified at all—by something that amounts to "my wording/fact/reference (if any)/viewpoint is better than yours". This seems particularly to apply to articles about military topics or popular-music bands, which appear to have "protectors" who will countenance no alternative point of view, and definitely not anything that might seem critical of the topic. Thus they stamp out any trace of criticism (say, any mention of the cost of the rapidly-going-obsolete bomber plane) or any dialing-back of the level of detail in the introduction (it's an introduction, dammit!). But to get to the point: Wikipedia is open-source: you don't own it, not even one article. Your way is not perfect, or even entitled. Neither is mine.

...or other punctuation ending a sentence. It's clearer that way.

Strangenesses

 * Far and away the most-visited article I have written: Witch window. I do not know why it is sometimes beset by wild popularity (e.g., 831,274 hits one week in October 2016—most of them on one day—beaten only by Donald Trump).

Recent activity:

Hmm. The graphs disappeared with the Wikipedia makeover in early 2023. The "temporarily unavailable" notice started popping up in April of that year, IIRC. I guess "temporary" is longer than I thought it was.


 * Hard to believe that I have a Ukrainian talk page, but I do.