Wikipedia:Editor review/Smallchief

Smallchief
I am curious about what other wikipedians think about my work, and their suggestions for improvements. Comments on content I have contributed to Wikipedia will be most useful. Technical or bureaucratic comments will likely be over my head. My level of computer literacy is such that filling out this form is a challenge for me.:) Smallchief 01:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

 Questions


 * 1) What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
 * My primary interest is history. I have created or substantially revised and expanded about 200 articles. Most deal with American Indians and Spanish/French explorers in the Southwestern United States and Great Plains. I usually write about obscure and neglected topics and people who I believe are nevertheless important.
 * 1) Have you been in editing disputes 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? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
 * One list I compiled was deleted from Wikipedia. The title was something like "Most Important People in the American Old West." The ranking of the most important people was based on the number of views of their Wikipedia articles. I learned that using Wikipedia, even Wikipedia statistics, as a source was a no-no -- even for what I considered to be a harmless and mildly interesting statistical list. The list was deleted: "original research," etc. I was amused -- and irritated -- by the large, uncomplimentary, and bureaucratic response I got to the list.  Would that my more substantive articles received 10 percent of that attention, favorable or unfavorable! I don't recall any other disputes worthy of note.
 * One list I compiled was deleted from Wikipedia. The title was something like "Most Important People in the American Old West." The ranking of the most important people was based on the number of views of their Wikipedia articles. I learned that using Wikipedia, even Wikipedia statistics, as a source was a no-no -- even for what I considered to be a harmless and mildly interesting statistical list. The list was deleted: "original research," etc. I was amused -- and irritated -- by the large, uncomplimentary, and bureaucratic response I got to the list.  Would that my more substantive articles received 10 percent of that attention, favorable or unfavorable! I don't recall any other disputes worthy of note.


 * Although my wife tells me that I respond to criticism with sarcasm or icy politeness, I have categorized myself as a "wikisloth," meaning that I avoid extended debates or edit wars. I'm much more interested in moving along to the next project. Stress?  It's a word in the dictionary.  I do this because it's fun.

 Reviews 

Wondered who was writing all these articles!
Hello Smallchief, I've been working through the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America assessment backlog, and was wondering who was writing all these articles!

You're one of about three or four editors I'm running across who are currently writing high quality articles about Indians / Indigenous Peoples of the U.S. (Hope I'm using terms that work for you; if not, let me know. :)

Your style right now is down-to-earth and practical rather than post-graduate/academic, which is just right, in my opinion. I'd say our first priority on the Indian Wars and traditional culture articles should be making sure the material is readable for the high-schoolers on the reservations, and for the tribal college students. We can let the anthropologists, linguists, and sociologists add the less comprehensible, theoretical material in their own sections and articles. Although the DYK reviewers seem to want an inline cite every couple sentences, I'm not so sure it makes sense to slow down like that initially when writing these overview articles. To my mind, we're better off improving overall coverage at this point, rather than working up just a few articles while leaving huge topics untouched. As an example of the gaps in our coverage, we went a very, very long time before getting an article on the Fetterman Fight.

Nonetheless, if you're interested, you might consider working with someone from MilHist to get one or more of your articles up to Featured Article. (They'll no doubt want you to add their B-class checklist to the MilHist talk page banner, as they have a 22K+ item B-class checklist backlog). If you enjoy teaching, you could also consider becoming an Online or Campus Ambassador for Native American Studies Programs. My guess, however, is that you're able to write these articles in part as a result of prior professional experience or study, and that we can't reasonably expect all average undergrads to get results like yours after a single semester's work.

As you've remarked, folks don't seem to notice when you write comprehensive, well-referenced articles; and folks like me, who do notice, may not have enough background to assess the completeness and accuracy. Since there will always be more volunteers able to serve as wiki-gnomes or outreach Ambassadors than volunteers able to produce well-sourced, comprehensive articles like you, I'd say, just plow ahead and keep going! Hope we can make it fun and encouraging so you'll continue! I thought I knew a bit about this topic, but am pleasantly surprised to see that much more of this historical tradition remains than I would ever have guessed. And I'm sure that the folks researching their family trees and local history will be very interested in whatever verifiable info you're able to turn up. Djembayz (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. I'm probably not interested in doing more at present than writing and revising articles to try to make them better.  But, in the future, maybe I'll get more interested in the details of producing "good" or "featured articles."  Right not I see sufficent gaps in Wikipedia coverage -- or inadequate coverage -- that I'll probably stay busy for quite a while.  Smallchief 00:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * To be very brief, I believe the barnstar I put on your talkpage reflects my views. Guys like you built this encyclopedia... my humble thanks to you. Jus  da  fax   02:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Reading your remarks, I blush with pleasure. Thank you. Smallchief