User:Wslack/Essay

=Wow, it's been a while since I wrote this. not sure I would stand by it anymore=

=A BIG ESSAY ON User_talk:Hillman, in response to User:Hillman.=

Have fun!

This will be long, but I haven't been able to really think in a while. I'll also start by saying that I'm not too experienced, having had any major conflicts, and thus remain fairly idealistic. However, I still think I have something to share on the theory aspects of your writings on the main page. I'm going down the page by section.

What is Wikipedia?
I agree with 1, 2 and the first bit of 3. Here's the second: "a suitable political and social infrastructure, whose evolution is wisely guided by a good helmsman to ensure that it continues foster our mission." I think this goes against the nature of open source. The idea is that everyone is a helmsman. Except for legally needed Office Actions, I don't see how a hierarchy fits into the experiment. An Admin's opinion shouldn't matter more than a new user's because of adminship but rather because of experience. Admin's have more tools, but more tools do not correspond to more voting power. It's about experience.

Wikipedia isn't to be managed, Wikipedia is to manage itself. That process is tacking place here. (I'll refer to that article later)

I think we all have the right to further the goals of Wikipedia, but not to detract from them. It is not a privilage to me, because that implies exterior control: A user is blocked because they have not exersized their right in Vandalism AND has impeded another's right to the best Wikipedia possible.

I think that the mainstream view should be presented ... as the mainstream view. Bias will come, but policy should call for no bias. That does not mean that mainstream ideas should be given equal weight as fringe ideas: They are more major and thus more deserving of content.

Here we run into the issue of Wikipedia Activism, where fringe ideas receive large articles that they do not merit, and mainstream ideas are left alone and short because they need no activists in the real world. So, therefore, I would say that: The tenants of a viewpoint deserve a place on Wikipedia's pages, but their justifications do not. And there lies the need for WikiSpeech.org.

As for the last paragraph, I think Wikipedia is and should be a repository of knowledge, but with quality control over certain articles. That's why I'm so excited about Stabilizing featured articles. As more and more articles reach a high status of quality, they could be saved and out of Wikipedia an encyclopedia would be born.

The real mission of Wikipedia?
1. Here we come back to the need to give tenants of veiwpoints and not justification, with the need of an obvious place for said justification. 2. This part comes with the territory. I don't know much about Valdalfighting, only that we seem to be fairly sucessful at it, I think. Perhaps the subjects of Wikipedia articles could request semi-protection if they fear libel. 3. Many things on the web are, I don't think this inhibits the goal of Wikipedia as long as said socializing happens outside of the Mainspace.

A failure of leadership?
This isn't meant to be Brittanica, or a blog. I think the goal lies between, where Wikipedia can hold all this knowledge, and at the same time have some method to assure quality.

Here is my first issue with your logic. This isn't Britannica, no one ever said it was, so presuming that as a premise hurts your logic in my eyes.

At the same time, I know that many of the articles on Wikipedia, such as those on Atlanta or the Telephone do not inspire angry essays, and thus that the lack of Wikispeech.org hurts a part of Wikipedia, the part of contention. I furthermore believe that said contention will not go away with Wikispeech, but will rather send off the true debaters and leave vandals, who will throw their ideas anywhere-they-want-to-thank-you-very-much.

I think the solution here is too work these articles to a good point, containing tenants of views and not justification, and then achiving them there under the Stabilizing featured articles idea.

In regards to "incompability of their policy of encouraging edits by IP anons with the goal of building a better Britannica," the assumption that Wikipedia seeks to be Britanica across the board is false in my view as I have already said. Wikipedia is a stew of the good, the bad, and the ugly, and our goal, if we want a Britanica, is to isolate the good, improve the bad, and ban'' the ugly.' The only thing we still need to do is isolation. Improvement and Reversion are already integral here.

Wikipedia cannot fail, just as it cannot succeed. But Wikipedia can move forward, and I believe it still does. We just need ways to keep us from sliding as we climb higher and higher.

An unexpected development
Nothing much to say in responce here, except that I think that Campaigns Wikia isn't Wikispeech, and that Wikispeech would be a good thing to move debate to a more appropiate environment.

An inappropriate political philosophy?
I do not think that Wikipedia holds to the Populist ethos. If that were the case, then AfD pages would just be vote-counters. They are not. More experienced users opinions carry more weight in my experience jsut as they should.

Another point is that true experts are diswaded from working here. This is true, but this is a Wiki, and that issue with remain. This is not Nupedia, where only qualified scholars made the articles. That project failed. And again, we are not here to build a Brittanica. We are here to buid the best Wiki we can.

A better leader?
I will not beat the dead horse again. Wikipedia isn't around to compete with Brittanica for quality, except possibly within featured articles. Brittanica aims for perfection (i.e. no errors) and does expect to get there. Wikipedia's strength and weakness lies in that it is never perfect. But still, we need to preserve the excellence we get so that energy can be spent in bringing new articles to excellence, and not holding old ones up.

A comment: A little more info on Wales would help people understnad why he isn't fit for your job.

Please do not misunderstand
I'm glad you enjoyed the social part, it helps retain people. And I will say again, that Wikipedia will never pass just as it will never fail, unless upkeep stops progress. Therefore, we need to minimize upkeep in order to maintain progress. This is an idea I've seen you write as well. I stand firm in the belief that making great articles static is a great way to reduce upkeep and give Wikipedia more momentum.

A brief account of my former activity at Wikipedia
Your dislike and disdain for anon editors is obvious here. I only got into this because of Anon editing, then realizing I wanted a watchlist and other things, requiring an account. Anons are a part of this process and I fail to see how they doom the project.

I am sorry that you had such a frustrating time with you math articles, and I can see how that would convice you that only true experts should be allowed. Thus I see again a need for you to have been able to save thoe articles so that you wouldn't have to spend time saving what you had already made.

In conclusion
I am fully in agreement that Wikipedia needs a way to lessen upkeep as to encourage progression. I believe in Wikipedia's ability to continue to produce excellent articles, provided they can be saved somehow. I do not think Wikipedia is doomed to fail, in that I believe in the core ideas of the project.