User:Skakkle/bleh

the amount of stupid shit on less-well-attended pages is staggering. just check my edits history. I always find them in the course of simply researching things that I think are interesting. types of "stupid shit" that I encounter:


 * typographical
 * grammatical
 * rhetorical [the rhetoric of wikipedia is one built on
 * authoritative voice,
 * notability of subject,
 * (and in many cases) non-deliberative/ non-question-asking, more question-answering]
 * [when an author does follow the deep grooves of such wikipedia norms, the article usually suffers. debate suffers. Such debate and intellectual exercise that might have played out within the content usually dwindles when these norms are too deep to avoid or question. I think. such problems are as often addressed by policy & procedure as they are perpetuated by it.]


 * funky assumptions
 * bad tone
 * basic, well-established facts wrong or missing

anyway