Wikipedia:Editor review/Gnixon

Gnixon
Interested in balance of edits to articles vs. talk pages. Interested in whether discussions with other users have been useful, anti-productive, or time wasted. Thanks, everyone, for your comments. Gnixon 08:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 

I looked at your talk page, your answers here, and the data from the edit counter tool. I wish you good luck. YechielMan 15:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are doing an excellent job in your chosen line of work, which is basically to monitor discussions and changes on two high-profile articles. Keep up the good work there.  Your interactions with other users are civil and respectful, and demonstrate a solid understanding of the subject, and of common misconceptions about the subject.
 * Normally I would advise editors to make more edits to the mainspace than to all other namespaces combined. (Personally, my mainspace edits are about 40% of my total, but most good editors do more article writing than I do.)  You have made about one third of your edits to the namespace, and two thirds on talk pages.  This is justifiable because you work with topics that require a lot of discussion in order to hammer out consensus, so your focus is well-placed.
 * I think you can use your talents in related projects. I don't know if you've tried joining WikiProjects, such as WikiProject Physics.  You might enjoy that style of collaboration.  You might also want to try working on other core topics, including the "Core topic collaboration of the fortnight".
 * You might also try cases at the Mediation Cabal. Recently a dispute about global warming posted there.  I think you could help resolve similar issues.

 Comments 


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


 * View this user's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I'm happy about promoting hat/hab archiving of recurring debates on the the Talk:Evolution page in order to keep them from dominating discussions, as well as other efforts to maintain and improve that high-volume talk page. Generally, I've tried hard to promote attainment of unbiased consensus on popular and controversial scientific articles such as Evolution and Physics in order to increase stability while encouraging further improvement.


 * I have worked hard to encourage an expert biologist to stick with Wikipedia (see Talk:Evolution and various talk pages), and I'm interested generally in how to encourage experts to contribute cooperatively without overwhelming them with Wikipedia culture and a cacophony of novice's opinions.


 * I'm proud of usually maintaining civility and good faith during heated debates and encouraging others to do so, and I'm proud of focusing on Wikipedia policy and long-established consensus instead of taking sides when discussing controversial edits.


 * I think my reorganization of Physics has been useful, particularly in that it encourages direct, bold editing of the article itself instead of pushing edits to Talk:Physics/wip. I think it will lead to further improvements, which I hope will return it to Featured Article status.  I guided an addition to Stokes parameters that I think added useful new content, although it is poorly integrated with previous material.


 * I'm proud of generally taking the time to copy-edit and otherwise attempt to improve articles as I read them for my own interest.
 * 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've been involved in edits conflicts with at least one editor who I think is representative of a particular class of Wikipedians who are well-intentioned but have a negative net impact.
 * I've been involved in edits conflicts with at least one editor who I think is representative of a particular class of Wikipedians who are well-intentioned but have a negative net impact.


 * In particular, I'm very concerned that a group of editors anxious to eliminate anti-evolution bias from creationists go so far that they poison Wikipedia articles with anti-creationist POV. See, e.g., Evolution (history), Objections to evolution, Misunderstandings about evolution, and Creation-evolution controversy. This is not a small issue, given the significant presence of creationists in the U.S. and the intensity of their beliefs.


 * I've been frustrated by what seems to be almost religious fervor for purging from Wikipedia anything remotely sympathetic or even neutral toward Creationists, along with a strong propensity to use Wikipedia articles and talk pages to disprove Creationist viewpoints, often in an extremely inflammatory way.


 * During edit conflicts, I've attempted to follow long-established Wikipedia conventions intended to minimize strife, which include maintaining civility and humility, assuming good faith and establishing it by offering compliments, using humor to cool tensions, taking "time-outs" from discussions when necessary, and apologizing when I fail to maintain composure. I've tried very hard to avoid pushing my own preferred version of articles, instead attempting to build consensus on controversial edits of sensitive topics or heavily-owned articles.  I've also spent considerable effort trying to settle quarrels as a third party (see, e.g., history of User_talk:Mandaclair.


 * However, I've been discouraged by the apparently minimal impact of my efforts and the feeling sometimes that I'm alone defending Wikipedia principles and traditions against a united front of POV warriors and article owners. I wonder whether Wikipedia would be improved by having a group of "policy watchdogs" who collectively monitor edits to particularly vulnerable articles and the discussions about them.  I know I have a lot to learn about how to make Wikipedia work, but I believe in it, and I'm trying my best.