User:Two hundred percent

This account was created primarily to clean up articles related to Malaysia, alongside this Commons account. As of now, I am no longer actively engaged with this wiki for various reasons.

Comparisons with Singaporean articles
Systemic bias is overwhelmingly present towards Singaporean articles, for example, in the English Wikipedia (in the form of references, quality of writing, contents and images), while those on Malaysia are incredibly shoddy and poorly written. Just compare these articles:


 * Francis Light vs Stamford Raffles.
 * Langkawi/Tioman Island vs Sentosa.
 * The National Library of Malaysia vs the National Library of Singapore. Guess it translates to Malaysians having no interest in reading.
 * The geography of Malaysia vs the geography of Singapore.
 * The Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre vs the Singapore Conference Hall. A crappy/obsolete list of events doesn't count, buddy.
 * The National University of Malaysia and the University of Malaya combined, vs the National University of Singapore. The National University of Malaysia article only seems long courtesy of its lengthy history lesson on its pre-1965 relation with Singapore (with only two paragraphs on its history post-1968), and a ludicrously but unnecessarily long list of "Faculties, Academies, Institutes & Center".
 * The New Straits Times vs The Straits Times.
 * The Highland Towers collapse vs the Hotel New World disaster. Still, the former could do with some cleaning up.
 * Carcosa Seri Negara (Kuala Lumpur)/Eastern & Oriental Hotel (Penang) vs Raffles Hotel.
 * Malaysian Malay vs Malays in Singapore, which is very jarring when Malays in Malaysia outnumber Singaporean Malays 24 to 1.
 * Malaysian general election, 2004 vs Singaporean general election, 2006. You would think the superior number of constituencies and candidates would be great for extensive coverage. But no. All we came up with was a measly 5 sections against the Singaporeans' 35. And their GE wasn't even remarkable to begin with. Seriously?
 * Singapore has five articles on individual lighthouses. Sure, there are exactly the same number of pages for ours, but it's only depressing to know that we actually have a lot more. Oh, and Pulau Pisang Light isn't technically managed by Malaysians.
 * Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) and Light Rapid Transit (Singapore) have individual articles on their rolling stock. Where the hell are information on rolling stocks done from the PUTRA LRT, Star LRT, and KTM Komuter!? Granted, we have improved sections on rolling stock, but it's still not on par to what the Singaporeans have. And we are still failing spectacularly on coverage of local railway stations, let alone those along the mass transit lines.
 * History of Malaysia when compare to History of Singapore. There needs to be more sections pertaining to Malaysia's modern history, beginning from independence 'til the present period. Well, that's one thing we have been addressing. Then again, Singapore's page has also been nominated as a Good Article; ours simply has a B rating.

Factors for poor quality
There are a few factors to the aforementioned Malaysia-Singapore divide in the English Wikipedia:


 * Singapore is a small island with four million degenerated people who have nothing better to do anyway so they edit wikipedia articles over and over again with great diligence. They have too much time in their hands.


 * Singaporeans have better access to the Internet and Wikipedia; while there is some Internet penetration in Malaysia, Malaysians prefer to use the Internet for leisure, not work. Most Malaysian editors are also concentrated towards the south west parts of Peninsular Malaysia, leaving the east and north ends of the peninsular, and East Malaysia (Sabah and Sarawak) underrepresented.


 * Singapore is essentially a single city roughly the size of Kuala Lumpur's metropolitan area. Because of the country's size and an efficient public transportation system, almost everything in Singapore is within easy reach of Singaporean Wikipedians. Malaysia is roughly 470 times larger with 11 cities, and countless towns and villages, but has a shortage and uneven distribution of able Malaysian Wikipedians and poor access to transport, be it private or public.


 * Despite having a population 6.5 times that of Singapore (26 million against 4 million), most Malaysian editors sport negative traits that guarantees poor participation in Malaysian articles:
 * Malaysians editors tend not to bother actually editing or researching. Has a lot to do with this "tak apa" ("never mind"/care-free) attitude ingrained in Malaysian culture. If they do edit, occasionally they tend to be half-assed in their efforts. That's why it's common to find Malaysian editors copy and pasting copyright info from websites without any knowledge of copyright infringement, or typing in personal opinions normally reserved for blogs. The initiative to actually improve Malaysian articles is just not there among many Malaysians. The same applies to the manner they upload and manage images. Shitty and short-sighted work, if there is any.
 * Singaporeans are generally fluent in English. Many Malaysians have poor command of English to ever edit properly. Has to do with the local educational system, primarily those in the public sector, as they were in favour of using the Malay language as a teaching medium over English. The writings of a few Malaysian editors here prove this point; just look around. That being said, I'm not sure about the Malay Wikipedia though.
 * The majority of Malaysian editor are either pro- or anti-UMNO/Malay/NEP/Islam, hence the likeliness that they will focus on politics or religion in Malaysia. A minority have edited neutrally or contributed to less controversial topics, but it never seems to be enough. The current social and political climate in the country may also prompt some editors to be emotionally charged towards such topics, while real-life concerns from said climate may not grant Malaysians the leisure to edit permenantly. This is why Second Malaysia Plan, Ketuanan Melayu and Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia, articles on race, politics and the Malaysian government, are the only featured articles primarily on Malaysia (May I add that the featured statuses awarded to these articles primarily resulted from the efforts of one really badass fellow. Outstanding job.).
 * Some Malaysian editors had edited articles on locations and history to read like glossed tourist guides or sanitised history books. I can't believe they are reduced to using Wikipedia as vehicle for bias or promotional info on something that may not be accurate or true to what is on the ground.

There are a few exceptions. A good amount of effort was made by a few editors to at least improve listings of Malaysian transportation articles. Those who are working on them should know who they are.

Still, generally crap work on Malaysian articles. Prove me wrong and I'll reconsider my stance.

To do list (inactive)
Basically a bunch of notes.


 * Reshuffle Category:Rail Transport (Malaysia) and populate Category:Rail transport in Malaysia. Done {04:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)}
 * Still undecided if categories for the Klang Valley are needed.


 * Reorganise topics in Category:History of Malaysia, and create categories for British colony officials. {06:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)}


 * Create article on Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor, the Tourist Minister. {18:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)} Created by someone else (good work). What's left is writing a bit about his notable use of alleged sexist remarks last year. {09:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)}
 * Create article on Papan, an apparently notable town during WWII. {07:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)}
 * Clean up POV garbage in Proton cars. {06:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)}
 * Work on architecture of Malaysia (currently a redirect to Category:Malaysian architecture. I have the Architecture volume of The Encyclopedia of Malaysia, something non-controversial enough that I can work with. {05:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)}
 * Looks like they want to rebuild the A Famosa. Write about the news, whether or not it will suceed or not. {10:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)}
 * Find out more about the National Automobile Distributor (Edaran Outomobil Nasional, EON). {18:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)}
 * This topic makes for interesting writing. Too bad everyone seems to be too mentally ill to write. {02:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)}
 * Integrate this citation into Proton Juara. {11:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)}
 * Merge Dang Wangi and Medan Tuanku with a new article. Areas don't exist as postcode-based divisions. {09:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)}
 * Status of Imbi currently in limbo. Apparently there is a little pre-war town at the north end of Imbi Road. {09:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)}
 * An article on the Old City Hall at Independence Square, Panggung Bandaraya DBKL, was created. Unfortunately the tone of the article and writing is imbalanced. {10:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)}
 * I suspect the Azhar Mansor article is full of cockshit as far as his sailing "feat" is concerned. Will need to verify whatever about him. {10:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)}
 * OH NO pulau batu putih take by Spore. we has fail. screw kiasu people. my bahasa british best!!!!111OnEONEOENE BAHASA MALAYSIA SAYA LAGI BAGUS!!11!!! HIDUP UMNO!!!!!!111 JAGUH KAMPUNG ATTACK!!! Em, silliness aside, gotta start thinking about articles to populate Category:Lighthouses in Malaysia and images for Category:Lighthouses in Malaysia, since everything on that particular island, which are pretty much the only items in these categories, are now Singaporean. {10:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)}
 * Got two articles up, no thanks to other Malaysian or Singaporean Wikipedians (and in the nick of time too). Eying on one pictar in the Malay Wikipedia to chuck into Commons later. {09:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)}
 * Four articles up. Moar. {01:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)}
 * National school. Have something written about our shitty SK. {10:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)}
 * See M62 motorway and Kansas Turnpike for benchmarks of good writing in expressway and road articles.
 * Emblem of Malaysia requires moar refs (got a few: ; ...)

Related page(s)

 * Gallery (inactive)