User:Tdorante10/Manifesto

In writing this, whatever this is, I was inspired after reading several other user's thoughts on Wikipedia and its ongoings; most recently (as of August 29, 2015) those of User:Beyond My Ken which can be found here.

Why I am here
Wikipedia has, since before I consciously knew what Wikipedia was, given me so much information and knowledge over my lifetime. This includes, but is not limited to: History, Biology (human, animal, plant, pathology, hurricanes, plate tectonics), NASCAR, and the transportation infrastructure of New York City; the latter two genres are now my main focus of contribution. Hopefully I have and will continue to give back to Wikipedia what it has given to me.

=Thoughts=

Anonymous Users
Every time I see an IP address in my watchlist, or even a username I don't recognize, I cringe expecting, at worst, terrible vandalism and/or self-promotion with bigotry and xenophobia thrown in for good measure. At best, on the other hand, I expect to find a contribution that may be productive now or in the future, but one that is grammatically awful, hastily written (much like this manifesto) and poorly organized within the remainder of the article. If you recognize the name "Jordan 'Chase' 'Bullet' Rose," you know what I'm talking about. That said, anonymous users constitute (I imagine) the majority of the readers of Wikipedia and should be as welcome to contribute as registered users are. Many regular IP's are as or more productive and devoted as Usernames. And if they become comfortable with Wikipedia, they could register and become even more productive, as I have done. Here are my feelings for specific instances. ""[Kyle] Larson's heritage, however, being of Japanese descent on his mother's side, as well as his involvement in the program is rarely mentioned in the media, possibly due to Larson looking like an American.""
 * Anonymous Users (or New Users) who vandalize, rearrange, self-promote, or sock puppet: Your "contributions" are not in fact contributions, but subtractions. You take away from the people who use (if not rely on) Wikipedia for information, and the people who work hard to build the articles up. You deface and defame what could be the most reliable, and definitely the most openly available source of the aforementioned information; a source I imagine you the vandal have benefited from. You (the vandal) can always change your behavior and become a productive member of our diverse community, and I believe you will get more of whatever you're looking for (satisfaction, affirmation and self-worth, endorphin rush) as a contributor than as a parasite. Otherwise, if you haven't fully understood the message, or wish to continue your cretinous behavior, I refer you to this. Or you could keep telling what kind of anti-Christ I am here.
 * Anonymous Users who are active and beneficial contributors: We thank you for your time and uncompensated service. Come out of the dark and into the light. At the end of the day, even registered users are at best semi-anonymous. My username could be part of my real name, or a nickname, or a name I randomly stole from the internet, or a random combination of letters and numbers than (when read correctly) sound somewhat rhythmic and pleasing. And if you become a registered user, other users can send you notifications of thanks with a little button, or personal messages of thanks and pictures of beer on your talk page!
 * Anonymous Users who have made counterproductive or raw contributions in good faith: I do not mean to deter you and your future contributions to the community. If I have reverted your edit, took it from the top of an article and placed it into a lower section, or plowed over it with my own articulation (I think Epicgenius calls it copy editing), it was not to deter you from making further contributions but for the good of the project. Contributions in good spirit can be beneficial in inspiring future content, even if they don't make the page.
 * An example of an anonymous contribution that may be productive in the future, but was removed. From the Drive for Diversity article:


 * In principle, I knew what this person was trying to say and I somewhat agree with them: Larson (a half-Asian, half-White driver in a predominantly white sport, NASCAR) could easily pass as white, and thus it is possible that the media or NASCAR itself downplays his background for commercial/PR reasons (which they cannot do with the visibly-Black Darrell Wallace Jr. or the audibly-Mexican Daniel Suárez). However, the user articulated it in a way which implies that all United States citizens (or natives of the land that is now the United States) are caucasian, which in addition to being reprehensible is factually incorrect. The reason I did not alter it into an acceptable state (I considered putting that opinion in there when originally starting that section of the article) was because A) it was an opinion, and B) an opinion without a reference to cite. If a person who happens to write for motorsport.com or Fox or whoever writes a column articulating the same opinion/observation, you may see it in the future.

Also, I encourage you to read the logs in Long-term abuse, to perhaps see the method to the madness of socks. Tdorante10 (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference and improvement templates (and the people who use them)
You know what these look like. They are typically orange or have some sort of warning image. And, in theory, the goal these templates attempt to achieve is necessary and beneficial. They tell readers the truth, that not everything in this article or section may be gospel truth (due to lack of sources, or questionable sources, or lack of neutral point of view). They also tell Wikipedians that this article needs attention, possibly because it offers incorrect information, or if it is that the article is not bulletproof.

But, when thinking about it, it is kind of disturbing to imagine users who go around the project not adding these needed citations, but simply putting these templates at the end of a line or at the tops of pages, blackballing entire pages without improving them. It is also odd that only some pages receive these scarlet letters, while other pages (due perhaps to their subject notability, or a perception of common knowledge, or whatever) that are equally un-cited do not receive this branding. The personal example I have is in 2015, when a user (who shall not be named) filled the Roush Fenway Racing article, which I feel is one of the better articles in WikiProject NASCAR, with citation needed templates without actually adding any citations. Then, in my attempt to make the first of several steps in improving the page by adding references, I was reverted and received a patronizing talk page message from the user who, in all this time, still didn't add any damn references! Again, this user shall not be named, but if you look in the page's history or my talk page history, you'll find them. 'Cause I ain't no snitch doe.

Now, obviously, I am passive-aggressively venting on a fellow Wikipedian, probably a beneficial contributor, who happened to rub me the wrong way. But this is one of many examples of adding warning flags without removing or reinforcing whatever hazardous material is in question. Or, they are preemptive in the many situations where there may not be any dangerous material to begin with, or in which the facts (just forget the nuclear waste metaphor) are easily verifiable. Now I don't necessarily expect other users to spend hours on end reading old and faded blueprints and newspaper clippings to find a source for something from 1866 (as I have done for some reason), but in many cases the five minutes spent adding individual or blacklist improvement templates could be spent finding some actual references, perhaps enough to make the templates unnecessary in that particular article. Instead these users copy and paste their warning flag down and move on, leaving users like me to due the actual work.

Anyways, as Wikipedians who want the project to be the reputable source it could be, just consider the ultimate purpose of these templates and what the easiest way to accomplish this goal is.

Update: I have since improved the Roush article, and removed the templates. Tdorante10 (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

GAMECRUFT should not apply to NASCAR games
While I agree (begrudgingly) that an entire list of drivers and sponsors should not be in NASCAR game articles, per GAMECRUFT standards, I disagree that omissions from games (say, Matt DiBenedetto not being in NASCAR '15) should not be included. I bring up the discussion found on the NASCAR 09 talk page, pitting four users from WP:Video Games, two of which were admins, verses (yes, verses) a few WP:NASCAR users and a few IPs, with the object of contention being whether or not a list of drivers and tracks should be in the game. From reading the several sections back (not including apparent "vandalism" or "attacks" from some of the IPs), it appeared very much to not be a discussion, but rather "We're taking your things, here's why you're wrong and ignorant, manifest destiny, eminent domain, CIA, FBI, NYPD, LAPD..." you get it. Several loyal and accomplished WP:NASCAR members were also demeaned for using CAPS to get their point across; viewing the situation, it seems they had no choice, with the WP:VG users construing their words via the double-edged sword of the Fifth Amendment. In addition to hostile and exclusive elitist editing, the WP:VGs admitted to having no knowledge of the NASCAR world, but also edited with the biased mindset of someone with no knowledge of the NASCAR world (or any sport, really). They viewed it as if every minor supporting character from the game was listed in the article, and that that is apparently wrong; I'd like to point out that an extensive list of minor, supporting characters exists for GTA V (a game I very much enjoy) and pretty much every other GTA game, which goes back to my suspicion of grandfather policies or looking the other way when it comes to articles with high notability or prominence. You could argue that because every driver in NASCAR games is playable, that since every track constitutes a setting in-which the game takes place, and because every driver and track is notable, that excluding mentions of drivers and tracks in these articles would be creating a huge gap of information. Based on the text in the talk page, a similar policy is imposed on Formula One games and presumable other racing games based on real-life racing series, which for the purposes of this argument are sports games.

Now, this is why they're wrong, and why the WP:VG policy is not one size fits all. NASCAR games, and all sports games are not like other games, because in each one there is an extensive roster (he he) of playable characters and teams and a large amount of fields, stadiums, or tracks (analogous to playable environments or geographic setting), that even a game like GTA V cannot match. MLB games, for example, could feature over 1,200 real-life players (from each team's 40-man roster, plus free agents). NFL games likely have even more. Because of this, listing every player or driver would be too much to include on Wikipedia, and I acknowledge this (begrudgingly). At the same time, the omission of a key player or driver (read: character) from a game, or of a stadium or track is notable, and should be mentioned in the Wiki article. While it is unlikely that a star athlete (a Bryce Harper, a LeBron James, a Jimmie Johnson) would be excluded from a game, it is both possible and notable for a mid-level athlete (a DiBenedetto, a Matthew Dellavedova, every middle reliever ever) to be excluded. This is a driver who could win a restrictor plate race and make the Chase, or replacement-level players who could make significant contributions on a championship-winning team at the highest level of their sport.

For examples, I turn to the articles on one of my favorite game series, MLB: The Show. The MLB 06: The Show article does not list every player, but does mention players omitted from the game due to not being part of the MLBPA and replaced with fictional players. Meanwhile, several MLB: The Show articles list the "classic stadiums" (such as the Polo Grounds). This is equivalent to mentioning the Daytona Beach and Road Course from the NASCAR Thunder games, and mentioning Nazareth Speedway from post-NASCAR Thunder EA Sports games, along with fantasy tracks based off real tracks such as the Dodge/Tiburon Raceway Stadium based off of Bowman Gray Stadium.

In the case of NASCAR, there around 40 individual entries and 23 tracks in the Sprint Cup Series. This is more characters and environments than most "normal" games, but significantly less than MLB or NFL games. Adding the Xfinity Series and Camping World Truck Series (should they ever make another multi-tiered game), that's around 120 entries, around 100 drivers, and less than 40 tracks or so, a large list of environments, but still a small roster of playable, sportsmen. This is where NASCAR differs from both "normal" games and other sports games. If a garden-variety middle reliever (I mean you Zach Duke, Joe Blanton and Dillon Gee) is excluded from an MLB game, you may not notice. But if one of only 40 drivers who attempted every race is excluded, a driver who could legitimately win a race in one of the world's top motorsports circuits, you're gonna notice and it is significant. Ultimately, NASCAR games are not "normal" games with fictional main characters and minor characters and NPCs, and fictional or semi-fictional settings. They are designed as a reflection of the real-life and notable sport, and should be detailed as such.

Solution:
 * Section heading: Drivers
 * Subheading: See also: (Year) NASCAR (Series name) or ''For a list of drivers from the (Year) season, see...
 * Body: X amount of drivers were included in the game. Drivers not in the game included (names of driver). These omissions were for (licensing, schedule, sponsor, etc...).

Also, I meant to write this months (years?) ago, but got sidetracked and lost my rage. Tdorante10 (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)