Wikipedia:Editor review/Dwaipayanc

Dwaipayanc
I have been in wikipedia actively since November 2005. I mainly participate in articles related to India. I would like to know what other editors think about my strength and weaknesses are as an editor in Wikipedia. Dwaipayan (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 


 * From the articles you've provided, I can see that you can contribute to Wikipedia very well. You show knowledge about how an article should be written.  Good job and keep up the good work.  N o l 888 ( Talk )(Review me please) 22:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dwaipayan, you are one of our best editors, and your featured articles are spectacular. You are an exceptional facilitator in discussions, and can easily change roles to a leader when the pressure is on.  I suggest that you run for adminship, as I think the extra tools will serve you well for what you'd like to accomplish on-wiki -- 74.12.75.51 22:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've had a close interation with Dwaipayan, and I have a lot of positives to speak about. I'll instead focus on some weak spots here: 1. Few contributions outside the India and medical related fields 2. Any involvement in disputes? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi! Yes, my contributions are limited to India, at best, South Asia. And some medical articles. I wish I could participate in many other areas; but every time I wish so, some Indian article or topic comes in notice that may be improved! And again I am on the same track! However, this is not a major negative thing IMO. Because it's not uncommon that one user devotes most of his activities in one or two particular fields, according to his interest or knowledge. Reading Mathematical series or Renoir is definitely enjoyable, but I cannot even dream to edit those articles (baring style issues, minor copyedits, typos etc)!
 * The other point you have raised is vital. No, I hardly participate in disputes. One reason, they seem boring and unencyclopedic. Having said this, one cannot deny the importance of civil mediation of any dispute, especially in this user-editable format. People are bound to have opposing POVs, and clashes are unavoidable. Otherwise the world would have been too perfect and too much unexciting :) Sometimes I follow disputes, but usually those get so long-drawn and sinuous, I wonder why the hell people are giving so much time when they have got much better works to do! Anyway, recently I have started to see disputes more closely (though rarely participating), and hope will get a better understanding soon. Basically my point of view towards disputes is also not very productive, in the sense, you cannot ignore disputes just because you do not like them. Rather, trying to mediate disputes in a civil manner is much more difficult and intelligent job. And I respect the wikipedians who continue to mediate disputes wisely and help wikipedia maintain NPOV as far as practicable. I am learning this aspect slowly. Thanks for your observations. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dwaipayan is vey much helpful and supported me in every matter in Wikipedia. He remained polite and explained me the right way when i made some small mistakes when i was a newbie in Wikipedia. Amartyabag  TALK2ME  04:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dwaipayan has been a great editor. Apart from contributing directly with new articles he has contributed enormously in lifting many articles to higher standards, particularly to featured status. His assistance in editing teaches others to improve on their output. I have immensely enjoyed working with him on the West Bengal Portal. He works without bias of any sort and I look forward to a large volume of useful contribution from him. - P.K.Niyogi 01:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

 Comments 
 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * Yes I am pleased about my contribution to some articles. It took me a few months to understand how wikipedia works. Then I started a featured article drive for Kolkata. I received immense help from many editors. The article got featured status in May 2006. It was a nice feeling. Apart from this, it was nice to be involved in some other featured article drives such as Darjeeling, West Bengal, Satyajit Ray and Delhi. However, two more articles I would like to mention where I was not that much involved, but was pleased because I liked both and wanted to see them as featured articles. One is Tourette syndrome, and I was involved since it was in peer review. Another is Hippocrates where I tried to help the main author as far as I could. Apart from all these FA drives, my stay is wikipedia has been very pleasing, thanks to the excellent community.
 * 1) Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * I do not remember any serious conflict I got involved in. During the initial days, I got involved in some debate in the talk page of the article Bagha Jatin. But I now understand it was a rather minor debate (taking into account the serious debates/conflicts we get to see!). The dispute was resolved reasonably.
 * 1) How much danger is there of Wikipedia becoming the propaganda engine for corporations and governments?  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   00:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is inherently susceptible for being used as a tool for propaganda. With increasing use and acceptability, the chance is increasing. Hiring of editors by companies like Microsoft and announcement of a business offering to create Wikipedia articles on behalf of corporations clearly show the tendency. Such open offers/incidents are easy to identify and take necessary actions. More of concern is self-promotional editing. For big companies, I think it would be hard to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool. Because there are many users in favour of or against every big shark! Microsoft cannot write blatant propaganda without being noticed by some user who is anti-Microsoft, or, at least, neutral. Unattributed claims/edits will be reverted or toned down. However self-promotional material by smaller corporates are often hard to notice, unless some neutral user stumbles upon those. Such articles are often put up for AfD.
 * Despite vigilance by the editors, there is every chance that propaganda would creep into Wikipedia, especially when done subtly. With an ever increasing mass of articles, the problem is going to increase. Regarding propaganda by government, it will be more tough for governments. The number of wikipedians who are against a particular government/political party is much more than wikipedians who are strict vigilant for a particular corporation. As a wikipedian from India, I can say that government propaganda is very tough to creep into wikipedia in this part of world. If federal or some provincial government tries to do some editing without proper references, that will be taken care of by Indian wikipedians themselves. Certain propaganda tends to be overlooked by the citizens of that country. For example, Indians may act in a biased way and let some anti-Pakistan propaganda stay in wikipedia. However, there are wikipedians from Pakistan to take care of that. And thankfully, there are wikipedians with cool heads who can mediate in case of any major dispute.
 * I want to emphasize that major blatant propaganda is easily recognizable and actionable, just by sticking to the basic principle of Attribution. But subtle intelligent propaganda are likely to be found with increasing frequency in Wikipedia.
 * 1) What can the Wikipedia community do to prevent that from ever happening?  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   00:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Conflict of interest/Noticeboard is a good place to start with. Subtle propaganda issues can be discussed here. For blatant propaganda edits, editors should be bold and remove.
 * Task forces/ groups can be built in order to keep vigil on particularly susceptible areas, such as, articles on terrorist organizations, articles related to sensitive international relations, or sensitive religious issues. However, participation in such groups is subject to an editor's knowledge of the subject and interest. There should also be some members in such task groups who are somewhat distant from the subject matter so that they can retain an unbiased point of view in case of conflicts.
 * May be in future wikipedia may need to hire some subject experts as well! They can help mediate arbitrations on their field. However, that is somewhat against the basic principles, and I don't think will be needed or possible in near future.
 * New users should be encouraged to know what is going on in Wikipedia. Signpost is a good thing that can be advertised, even in the main page, so that new users get to know the internal stuffs. This is needed because with the immensely increasing bulk of content, it is not easy for any task group or a few editors to see what is happening everywhere. If reporting of propaganda/errors by new users increases, the workload may ease. An average new user or passer by hardly go to the Community Portal. So displaying some important aspects of the community portal may be needed in the main page.
 * Ending in a somewhat philosophical note (!), every wikipedian at all point of time should remember and act according to the Five pillars of Wikipedia. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Would you like to be an administrator? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would like to be an administrator. But not in near future, because of two reasons. First, some personal commitments. Second, IMO I am yet to learn some functioning of wikipedia, and participate in certain aspects which I am somewhat ignorant about. For example, as you yourself have noted in the review, I usually fight shy of disputes. With the ever increasing inflow of information, Wikipedia needs some more administrators, and I would like to be one sometime in future. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I get to nominate you. E-mail me when you want the nom -- 70.53.128.186 23:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would like to be an administrator. But not in near future, because of two reasons. First, some personal commitments. Second, IMO I am yet to learn some functioning of wikipedia, and participate in certain aspects which I am somewhat ignorant about. For example, as you yourself have noted in the review, I usually fight shy of disputes. With the ever increasing inflow of information, Wikipedia needs some more administrators, and I would like to be one sometime in future. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I get to nominate you. E-mail me when you want the nom -- 70.53.128.186 23:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)