YellowMonkey gone?, Cryptic deletion logs for the win Options

[weburiedoursecretsinthegarden]

Ack.

This was probably covered somewhere else on WR but I don't see a post in this forum, so...

Well, I for one don't get the deletion log entry, but then, I'm an idiot, so.

All the best, Blnguy- I mean, YellowMonkey.

[One]

He deleted the userpage with the description [[Boxer (Animal Farm))]].

This alludes to some comments he made on a recent arbitration case. You might disagree with the editor, but I thought his observations were generally correct. Social users seem more likely to be "vested contributor" superusers than prolific article-writers. Insofar that Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedic project, that seems backwards.

He was a prolific editor. I hope he comes back.

[Reposted this from the necro'd thread, which had an inappropriate title, that the admins were uninterested in fixing.]

[Shalom]

From One's diff, Blnguyen says: "But then again, unfortunately many article writers are hapless and politically naive and think that people actually like them."

I've experienced that myself. I've written more than 300 articles on Wikipedia: still today, more than six months after my main account stopped writing articles, I have authored more than one out of every thousand articles on Wikipedia. Aside from the few Did You Know appearances, I have received no recognition for my work. I did not expect recognition per se, but I did expect that people who would castigate me would consider my article work in mitigation. Therefore, I support Blnguyen's advice for anyone who wants to listen. Write articles, but don't expect a thank you as a substitute for not being paid money. You won't be paid in thank you either.

[Milton Roe]

From One's diff, Blnguyen says: "But then again, unfortunately many article writers are hapless and politically naive and think that people actually like them."

But you may find that people like what you write. For example a number of articles on WP I've contributed heavily to are #1 google page-ranked when you search on the term.

Now, am I under the impression that this is due solely or even mostly to the amazing quaility of my writing? No.

But, on the other hand, just because a WP article exists on a subject, even a detailed one, does not ensure that it will be the #1 Google hit. It actually has to be a "pretty good and pretty readable" summary article, too. So those of us who enjoy that sort of thing, do it for that reason. If Google gives us an artificial boost, so what? We write to be read. Screw the barnstars. They mean nothing and we all know it.

[Cla68]

From One's diff, Blnguyen says: "But then again, unfortunately many article writers are hapless and politically naive and think that people actually like them."

But you may find that people like what you write. For example a number of articles on WP I've contributed heavily to are #1 google page-ranked when you search on the term.

Now, am I under the impression that this is due solely or even mostly to the amazing quaility of my writing? No.

But, on the other hand, just because a WP article exists on a subject, even a detailed one, does not ensure that it will be the #1 Google hit. It actually has to be a "pretty good and pretty readable" summary article, too. So those of us who enjoy that sort of thing, do it for that reason. If Google gives us an artificial boost, so what? We write to be read. Screw the barnstars. They mean nothing and we all know it.

That's it exactly. Using the stats meter shows how much "your" article is being read. If the article is taking several thousand hits each month, but doesn't get messed with too much, such as changes to the wording, in my opinion that means that you did a good job with your writing. Also, if the article's talk page doesn't contain many questions or comments about the article's content, that means that the majority of the article's readers are satisfied with what they see and can't find any major issues. In short, silence often means that you did a good job. That's who you're writing for, right? The general public, not other Wikipedians?

Still, like I said in the other thread, it's understandable that some writers might be dismayed at the lack of respect that article writers receive from the Wiki game-players. I can think of several names of former arbitrators and other influential admins right off the top of my head who really didn't even try to hide their indifference or ambivalence towards article writers. I think this may be what is bothering, at least in part, YellowMonkey.

[EricBarbour]

But, on the other hand, just because a WP article exists on a subject, even a detailed one, does not ensure that it will be the #1 Google hit. It actually has to be a "pretty good and pretty readable" summary article, too. So those of us who enjoy that sort of thing, do it for that reason. If Google gives us an artificial boost, so what? We write to be read. Screw the barnstars. They mean nothing and we all know it.

You shouldn't even write for immediate gratification like web hits. Because of the widespread copying of WP article text, what you write has a good chance of lasting for decades as a reference--even if it's flawed, and Wikipedia (or the fate thereof) be damned.

Someday (maybe long after we're all dead), someone could find your articles useful. Especially if they deal with an obscure subject.

(Of course, if you're smart, you'll post copies of it on Encyc or elsewhere....)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Cla68]

(Of course, if you're smart, you'll post copies of it on Encyc or elsewhere....)

Seriously, what other websites should good Wikipedia articles be copied to?

[Alison]

(Of course, if you're smart, you'll post copies of it on Encyc or elsewhere....)

Seriously, what other websites should good Wikipedia articles be copied to?

What about Wikipedia Review? Jon Awbrey and others have uploaded their best articles there already. Also, I like the way Greg has laid out the wiki, what with the directory system, dynamic creation of lists, etc.

[Cla68]

(Of course, if you're smart, you'll post copies of it on Encyc or elsewhere....)

Seriously, what other websites should good Wikipedia articles be copied to?

What about Wikipedia Review? Jon Awbrey and others have uploaded their best articles there already. Also, I like the way Greg has laid out the wiki, what with the directory system, dynamic creation of lists, etc.

That's a good idea.

[Son of a Yeti]

Do we have two threads about him right now?