User talk:Thesimpleton

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Ronz 19:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Information design - my perspective
I don't think I'm making much of an impact on your approach to this article, and I'm not sure what to do about it. My perspective is that you're approach is not taking into account Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You're being bold, but much of what you're contributing is not encyclopedic. From my perspective, you're writing a large advertisement for what you personally believe information design to be. I'm not sure how to proceed. You're new here, so I want to encourage your contributions. At the same time, I think there are very large number of policies and guidelines that you need to be aware of, otherwise you're risking a great deal of frustration. I've got an idea... --Ronz 16:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few policies and guidelines that I think would especially be helpful to you: --Ronz 16:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV - describes how "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias."
 * WP:SOURCE - how to properly source content, and what content is allowed.
 * Conflict of interest - describes guidelines for conflicts of interest.


 * Thanks for this, Ronz - I had missed this message but had only seen the (what I regard as) rather cryptic ones in the public page. You say "I don't think I'm making much of an impact on your approach to this article, and I'm not sure what to do about it." For one thing, be specific. Identify a sentence and say in what way it is misrepresenting the field, or what a more encyclopedic approach would look like. I learn from criticism and feedback as much as anyone, but it needs to be a little more illustrative.
 * "You're writing a large advertisement for what you personally believe information design to be." Obviously I and others are contributing what we believe to be a true description, but it sounds as though you think we're biased in some respect, and are not representing some other point of view, or are ignoring a debate. Or am I just ignorant. I don't believe I am any of these things knowingly! Which is why I am constantly fishing for specifics in your criticisms. I don't think I have a particular axe to grind and in fact have better things to do with my time... but was a stub sitting there with no one doing much about fixing it. I realise I appear to have contributed a lot, but most of it is my transcription from a group brainstorm of around 60 people attending an information design conference from over 20 countries, researchers, educators and practitioners.
 * " I'm not sure how to proceed." Why not edit the introduction so it reflects what you personally believe information design to be? In other words, something like: The term 'Information design' originates in [x] but is also used to describe [y]. What they have in common is...
 * Happy to work together on this! (Thesimpleton 16:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC))


 * For wikipedia, I think the best approach to articles is not to try to write about what is (what the truth is, what the latest and best theories are, etc), but write about what others' have written about. Does that make sense?  If you read WP:SOURCE and WP:NOR first, it will probably be easier to discuss.
 * It's not that your perspective is wrong, just that it can lead you into difficulties and frustration. In many ways, it's easier to edit wikipedia articles where you have no expertise because that forces you to be more familiar with both wikipedia itself, and the sources currently referenced in the articles you work on.  Am I making any sense? --Ronz 17:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)