User:Shrumster/Comments

Criticism of Wikipedia
Notability. If Wikipedia is supposed to be "the sum of all human knowledge", how come editors everywhere are deleting articles for lack of "notability"? Everything is "notable" to at least someone/thing. Just because a person has never heard of a particular thing doesn't make that thing unworthy of being included in "the sum of all human knowledge". Far too often, I see these editors (deletionist and otherwise) powertrip and wave their "non-notability" flags all over an article about a thing that clearly exists.

If their "notability" rules were applied to the global systematic community, for example, a lot of species out there would remain unstudied and forgotten because they weren't "notable". Take for example, Oxyeleotris expatria. Ever heard of it? I bet most of you haven't. Ever seen it? I bet even less of you have. I know I haven't. Search around the net for it. See many sources? Not really. By these wikinazis' standards, it should be excised as it is "non-notable" and clearly isn't fit to be part of "the sum of all human knowledge". And yet, someone out there will tell you that he's been studying that fish for the better part of his life, and has written several papers on it. Just because these wikinazis have never heard of the Marine Ecological Progress Series, Journal of Systematic Biology or even Copeia, they'd say "Those sources aren't notable enough." There goes that N-word again. And if they had their way, Oxyeleotris expatria would go the way of the dodo, both in reality and in the online world, just because a group of elitist, ignorant webaddicts don't consider a highly endangered fish in a small lake on an island in the middle of nowhere "notable".

There's your "notability" for you.

Shrumster 12:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And their notability rules change very easily too. Following the history of WP:WEB, the supposed "guidelines" for "notability" of websites, is very confusing. Looking as past pages, I can see many things have been added, removes, changed and the like. So I guess these wikinazis can just change the rules as they see fit, to power their arguments. Sigh.

Shrumster 19:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...two pages I vigorously EDITED and defended from AfD have just been deleted. LOL. What a flawed system.

Wikibureaucracy
I personally think that most "editors" on wikipedia talk more than write actual content. For example, an edit count of a person that has 10,000 edits might show that only 2,000 of those are in mainspace and the rest are in talk/wikipedia pages. Talking about the most insignificant elements, such as word choice, notability, procedure, etc. Most people should just shut up and write.

Deletionists
Expert deletionists know exactly what to say during AfDs to get any article deleted. They know what words to label arguments as, so that when an uninvolved admin passes by and scans over the discussion, the keywords will immediately light up and just subconsciously influence the admin to agree with the deletionists. Deletionists will be quick to label any source given in an AfD as "unreliable" or in a sick, circular-(il)logic fashion, "non-notable". Whenever faced with certain arguments, they are quick to change their standards. For example, they'll be quick to point out how "non-notable" a site is by citing a low Alexa ranking or few Google hits. When faced with an article with a high ranking/lot of Ghits, they will be quick to point out that that "does not establish notability". They also have no qualms about attacking the "keep" wikipedians themselves instead of their arguments.

Criticism of the AfD Process and "consensus"
The process is flawed. Many editors will just drop by, vote, and then forget all about it. This is not really a problem if their vote is keep, but when editors vote delete, they have a responsibility to check back if the article was improved, and then change their vote accordingly.

No consensus means that the closing admin really wants the article deleted, but there is an overwhelming keep argument that to delete the article would raise quite a few eyebrows among even other deletionists. However, he wants to keep the option to delete the article open, therefore declaring "no consensus" as he is just not willing to accept defeat.

It begins. Talk:Desktop_Tower_Defense One of the sneakier tactics of deletionists I've seen is to slowly pick apart at the sources of well-sourced articles. Through trickery, deceit, semantics and wordplay, they will attempt to whittle away at the sources by claiming the sources "not notable" or "not reliable sources." Once they have removed a significant amount of sources, they will then nominate the article for deletion on the grounds of being "non-notable" because there are "no reliable sources" for it. Also witnessed being practiced by deletionists on well-written mobile suit gundam articles. Just an example of how deletionists can get so desperate to delete *anything* that they'll deconstruct well-written articles just so they can have something to delete.

Regarding Notability
Here are some articles that have been taken down that I tried to fight for.
 * WarCry (website) AfD "Discussion" - Deleting "admin" User: A Train
 * I find it quite interesting that this article, which I fixed enough that the original nominator was convinced to change his delete vote to keep, was still deleted.
 * Article was reinstated thanks to an ungodly amount of interviews stuck in by User:Coelacan.


 * Ten Ton Hammer (website) AfD "Discussion" - Deleting "admin" User:A Train

Anti-Elitism
I have finally run into the anti-elitism supposedly common on Wikipedia. It concerns a page I edited, Mitsukurina owstoni, or the goblin shark. Here is the page before I edited it. Here is the page after I edited it. Unfortunately, some guy came along and rearranged all the sections "for consistency with all the other shark articles" into this. I am dismayed. As a scientist, and educator and an ichthyologist, my reordering made sense. Morphology, range and distribution at the top 'cause those are the most interesting for non-scientists. Instead, he puts "taxonomy" at the top, a paragraph that can easily turn off non-scientific readers. The section names have also been "dumbed-down". "Morphology" has been changed to "Anatomy and appearance". The "Ecology" section and its subsections have been split and distributed throughout the article. Instead of being a scientific approach to the species, it is now a pop-culture "fun" page. And why? Because it resembles a "featured article". Unfortunately, especially with scientific subjects, "featured articles" only mean that the article has impressed the lay WP community enough to label it as that. Doesn't mean that its layout or even wording is the most appropriate. Sigh. I'm done editing these articles where anyone can just pass by and screw up your hard work. I now know why people edit pop-culture stuff on Wikipedia. Because nobody is really a pop-culture "expert" and won't be annoyed when some guy refashions the article itself. Sigh. This close to leaving this stupid project. Shrumster 05:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. My changes have been reverted. Sucks that expertise can be overturned by consensus. Whether it claims not to be one, Wikipedia is a democracy. Not saying that democracy is bad, but there are places where it is inappropriate. For example, the intelligent design "controversy". Oh well. Shrumster 08:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have hit that Wikiwall again. I tried to make constructive edits to the Pygmy Hippopotamus article...reverted with a "there are more articles that do it this way" reasoning. Lol, that's wikimocracy for you. Mob rule on academics. Sigh. Shrumster 13:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Some Quotes from Users that I Seriously Disagree With

 * Although this article seems to be well written, it is far from a suitable candidate for a featured article. The subject matter renders it ineligible. Real encyclopaedias don't have articles about Jabba the Hut, because they are not written by sci-fi nerds. Wikipedia is, and one of the reasons it gets bashed in the press is because crap like Pokemon has more presence on wikipedia than serious topics like history. Having JABBA THE FREAKING HUT on the front page makes wikipedia look like a two-bit joke of an encyclopaedia - like it's a collection of trivial shit, compiled by uncultured, know-nothing computer nerds who think Star Wars is the greatest work of literature ever composed. Having this as featured article undermines the credibility of wikipedia as a serious work of reference. -- User:Corinthian 01:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC) - From the Talk:Jabba the Hutt page.
 * Elitist view.


 * I removed the citation needed tag from the article. I agree, things just are like that in the Philippines. —Lagalag 18:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol, so crappy pinoy culture endures even here in WP. Pinoy's "ganyan talaga" may be enough for these underachieving pinoys, but it is NOT accepted by a professional place like Wikipedia.


 * This seems a fair comprimise--Mcgrath50 04:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, Wikipedia is not perfection. It's a compromise. Sigh. Shrumster 05:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Some Quotes from Users that I Actually Agree With

 * Keep. I remember hearing of Starslip Crisis on at least two separate Internet contexts at least six months ago. I’ve never read it, but after reading the article, it sounds like an interesting comic. By the way, many notable AND non-notable webcomics (indeed, many print comics and print comic strips) have trade paperback collections; both Garfield and El Goonish Shive have collections available. One point I’ve not heard yet in this discussion: notability is based on context. For the larger world audience, any Parkour enthusiasts or Free running clubs outside of the originators are largely irrelevant; the same is likely true of past Toastmasters World Champions of Public Speaking, but as a Toastmasters AC-B myself, I would recognize the names of at least the past three if I heard them in passing. Webcomics are largely more notable within their intended audience, as is everything else. There are people who don’t know anything about Brian Peppers, and people who don’t know anything about Bahrain; if those people are called on to decide the notability of such articles, they’re not as likely to find it notable as people who know more about the subject. On whose context does Wikipedia depend? –BlueNight 06:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that people without much botanical knowledge who are arguing strongly for titles of all or most articles by their common names are, unfortunately, limiting their future knowledge of plants with this personal strategy, also. This is one reason why it is important to try to find a way to make scientific names a normal part of research for laymen--it increases their power to understand the topic in a way that common names cannot. KP Botany 00:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of WikiPilipinas
In August of 2007, an online service called WikiPilipinas had its official public unveiling. Even though it started out as a WP:FORK of the massive online resource Wikipedia, it bills itself as a "hip and free encyclopedia". Here are some of my own personal comments and criticisms of the service.

''“Filipinos have always been content to read on stuff written about them by foreigners. Now it is no longer true. The normal tao now has access to publishing.Why must we be content with articles about the Philippines written by foreigners in Wikipedia?” he says. “That is the challenge to all of us. If you like reading about yourself as regurgitated by how foreigners regard you, then do it. But we understand ourselves better than the person who interprets us outside of the country. The dominance of knowledge does not belong to the western world. Because of the internet and this technology, Filipinos have equal power. All you need to do is write.”''

Fallacy #1: Wikipedia is written by foreigners. I have NO idea where he got this idea. Wikipedia is written by anyone and everyone who has an internet connection. WP doesn't give a rat's ass where in the world you are connecting to the Internet. To say that Wikipedia articles about the Philippines are written by foreginers is to be completely ignorant. In fact, the editor with the most edits on Philippines is User:Howard the Duck...a Filipino.

What scares me
From: http://dennisvillegas.blogspot.com/ ". A computer (of course!), if you don't have one, it's cheaper, faster and more convenient to rent one in internet cafe than go to National Library and ask zombie-looking librarians for books."

As an educator, this person's mindset disturbs me heavily.