|
YellowMonkey gone?, Cryptic deletion logs for the win |
|
|
weburiedoursecretsinthegarden |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 11
Joined:
Member No.: 10,809
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Shalom @ Tue 31st March 2009, 2:20pm) 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 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 31st March 2009, 10:05pm) QUOTE(Shalom @ Tue 31st March 2009, 2:20pm) 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.
|
|
|
|
Proabivouac |
|
Bane of all wikiland
Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,246
Joined:
Member No.: 2,647
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 31st March 2009, 11:16pm) 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.
An excllent example of this attitude and the mistaken assumptions which underpin it (to the extent that it is thought out at all) is provided by Jayron32, high school chemistry teacher and fellow member of LaraLove's "bathrobe cabal," endorsing Peter Damian's ban on Wikipedia's administrators' noticeboard: QUOTE(Jayron32) "On the balance, and over a long period of time, any topic worth writing about well and notable enough to include in Wikipedia will eventually be written about by someone else. At Wikipedia, we value our contributors, but nothing anyone does is indespensable. If you are going to create content and be disruptive; well someone else will come along some day and create the content anyways and not be disruptive. I will take my chances with the good person who has no intent of making a point or who has no alterior motive beyond merely adding good content over guys like this. Endorse the block." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=250089161This may be so in where a generic curriculum is to be offered, and enough pay to ensure that there is at least someone willing to take your job, but in real academia, as in the arts, the notion that talented scholars are interchangeable is wildly wrong. Very often, there are only a few, or even just one, expert in any given subject, were it not for whose existence and employment, the work would simply never have been done. Even if it is the case that a given Wikipedia article of the same title would be created anyhow, to assume that it doesn't matter who winds up writing it indicates either a depraved indifference to all content below the title, or an remarkably unrealistic faith in Wikipedia's content policies to ensure consistency, at whatever quality, regardless of who is entrusted with applying them.
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |