User:Warren/But why work on Windows articles?

But why?
I've actually been asked this a couple of times. Why would I "waste" my time working on articles related to the "evil" Microsoft and the "terrible" Windows operating system? The inherent bias in line of questioning is, of course, something that's fairly prevalent amongst devoted advocates of non-Microsoft (or, shall we say, "anti-Microsoft") software and philosophy. Wikipedia, being founded on principles more in line with this kind of advocacy, has been a place where a great deal of effort has been expended on creating great articles about these alternate platforms, products, and philosophies.

Arguably, most of the Windows userbase (and by extension, most computer users) regard their computer as a tool for accomplishing tasks, not as a subject of advocacy and philosophical/technical debates. It's this "silent majority" that I feel Wikipedia has been under-serving all this time, and I try to work towards fixing this. It's weird, you know, some people will look at that goal and assume that I'm somehow pro-Microsoft or a "shill" or have some kind of ulterior motives for doing this work; such is the sad result of zealous advocacy. I kinda feel sorry for people who need to be in a gang so badly that it overrides the human mind's capacity for decency and respect towards others.

Computing is surely not the only area of life where this happens; to my way of thinking, being a zealous technical advocate is no better or worse than being a zealous religious or policial or social advocate. It's pretty ugly, actually, when you look at it from the outside. One of Wikipedia's most significant "problems" is the steady influx of people with a pre-determined point of view, which they've convinced themselves (or have been convinced by silver-tongued Others) is the Right Way To Look At It, and proceed to alter Wikipedia to match their worldview.

What I like about Wikipedia is the fact that it not just favours, but demands the kind of neutrality that zealous advocates of a subject just can't get away with. This is a very good thing, and the process works to keep us honest as editors and as people. And maybe, with any luck, people's trust in Wikipedia as being neutral and factually verifiable will convince some otherwise needlessly opinionated people that their way of looking at a subject is badly informed, and learn something in the process.

.... oh, and for what it's worth, most of my contributions to Windows-related articles are done on a Mac using Safari, or on Windows with Firefox.

-- Warren; March 2006