User:TheOldMT

January 12, 2016

This is not an article, but rather an attempt to register in some way a complaint regarding the workings of Wikipedia.

On January 12, 2016 I signed in and discovered a Notification reading: "Your edit on Koyaanisqatsi has been reverted by DragonflySixtyseven (20 days ago)." This is disturbing for the following reason: I reverted my one and only edit on Koyaanisqatsi. My reversion was made only minutes after my edit had been made. There was, at the time of my reversion, no evidence of any other reversion. In view of this evidence, all other claims to creating a reversion of my edit in question are patently false.

This situation brings to mind the question of the validity of Wikipedia's overseers. On this date I have visited several Wikipedia pages related to the governance of Wikipedia and found more data which is disturbing for the following reason: Wikipedia has marked many of these pages related to its governance as "failed proposals." I have read some material about Jimbo Wales and Lawrence Cohen, and I have read some material written by each.

Next:

To its credit, I have discovered that the "governance" of Wikipedia is occupied by people who approve of a thoughtful and careful approach, at least insofar as Wikipedia is concerned. Being thoughtful and careful minds, they are forced to face the fallibility that exists in each of them as well as in their collective entity. While I do not choose to spend, on this date, a great amount of my time discussing their fallibility, I urge the group charged with governance of the Wikipedia project to clean up their act. Errors in punctuation, grammar and the reporting of information found in individual articles, which are not infrequent, can be edited. I am a newcomer to this process. I feel only the pleasure of a teacher "correcting" students' papers as I make warranted revisions. Meanwhile, the document(s) relating to governance ought contain, by virtue of the supposed thoughtfulness of their authors, only few instances of incorrect punctuation, grammar and the reporting of information. The documents regarding Wikipedia's governance contain noticeable errors in punctuation. I did not notice any irrefutable evidence of poor grammar. However, as is the gist of this entire entry, I am disillusioned by the material and its validity overall that is presented in these documents.

Come on, folks. Let's make a really good Wikipedia.