→Notice: reply to GregL |
m sp |
||
(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
It’s about time we had a serious discussion about having a tiered system of editors where there are hierarchies. While writing my articles, I actually look up the original papers and <u>called the Ph.D.s who wrote them</u>. I had done so extensively for an article on thermodynamics as well as one on a quantum-related subject. In both cases, the Ph.D.s graciously gave me a huge amount of help and seemed honored that someone would make the overture to them to seek their advise and feedback. In both cases, initial emails were followed up with a phone call or two, and then were followed up with emails so they could review proposed text I was preparing for the Wikipedia article in question. In both cases, they made valuable corrections because in physics, there are frequently exceptions to the rule that makes it important to be ''very'' precise with a given statement so as to not be more encompassing or sweeping than the facts support. |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion]] of [[Cobalt (CAD program)]] == |
|||
[[Image:Ambox warning yellow.svg|left|link=|48px|]] |
|||
Why should I be digging this stuff up by going straight to the horses mouth? Why aren’t these Ph.D.s contributing directly to Wikipedia on an article discussing material ''they published'' in peer-reviewed science journals? |
|||
The article [[Cobalt (CAD program)]] has been [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed for deletion]]  because of the following concern: |
|||
:'''There has been a long and repetitive debate but still there is only one external source which makes a brief mention of the subject. As such this article does not meet notability.''' |
|||
In '''''both''''' cases, the Ph.D.s were truly gobsmacked that anyone would bother to toil over article content that some 15-year-old kid could revert. These experts are ''amazed'' that Wikipedia works at all because of the ease with which ignorant or stupid people revert studious, factual truth because he or she read that [http://i.abimg.net/images/answers/1164537/4983435/DickCheneyrobotheartWeeklyWorldNews.jpg?1336454672a Dick Cheney is a robot], or worse yet, something not quite so asinine so most non-specialist editors can’t tell on first sight that the allegation is B.S. |
|||
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be [[WP:DEL#REASON|deleted for any of several reasons]]. |
|||
I can tell you from first-hand experience, since I am now a medical researcher specializing in bariatrics and metabolism, that there are numerous utterly laughable, fallacious assertions in our articles. It would be easy to fix them. But it is '''so hard''' to defend stuff because the true facts are supported by really complex material from text books and scientific papers that aren’t available as hyperlinks. Few experts are willing to endure the frustration of defending complex technical writing on Wikipedia. |
|||
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]] or on [[Talk:Cobalt (CAD program)|the article's talk page]]. |
|||
It will be difficult to come up with a smooth-running process to graduate editors to hierarchies, but the notion that all editors are equally capable and knowledgeable is, of course, fallacious. The idea that “[[WP:Consensus]]” can address these differences is (sorta) valid, but it takes an ''extraordinary'' amount of time to deal with false allegations. Moreover, merely by being polite with faux wikipleasantries, the most exceedingly tendentious and verbose editors can virtually hijack entire venues of Wikipedia and cause ''hundreds'' of man-hours of time be devoted by the community to get things done. |
|||
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion process]], but other [[Wikipedia:deletion process|deletion process]]es exist. In particular, the [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion|speedy deletion]] process can result in deletion without discussion, and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]] allows discussion to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> [[User:DuLithgow|duncan.lithgow]] ([[User talk:DuLithgow|talk]]) 20:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
The vague notion that “Everyone is granted equal editing privileges because we’re all '''''equal,''''' ''maaaaaan”'', makes for [http://cdn.wn.com/pd/fd/c8/a2be46cc11a30d09dfb839edbe6e_grande.jpg fine music next to your VW bus,] but creates an environment that prevents the most knowledgeable contributors from ''even considering'' contributing to the project. |
|||
* Oh, *really*? By what sort of galactically moronic reasoning did you come up with ''that'' reasoning considering what all is in [[List of computer-aided design editors]]??<p>Well, you don’t know your fucking ass from a hole in the ground. Fuck off. [[User:Greg L|Greg L]] ([[User talk:Greg L#top|talk]]) 20:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::And next time, <u>actually first create the voting page</u> for an AFD '''before''' bothering an editor who did hard work creating an article so you don’t waste so much of another human being’s time. I’m too busy in real life making money and paying taxes to bother with this shit. |
|||
It’s clear that a Ph.D. physicist who wrote a landmark paper on string theory knows more about a subject that most generalist editors who A) have high self-esteme, and B) a high-speed Internet connection. It’s equally clear that experts shouldn’t have to devote as much time proving a point of fact as does [http://www.hahastop.com/pictures/The_Nerd_Bed.jpg some 15-year-old kid with gobs of time on his hands.] If everyone had equal knowledge (a clearly false assumption), we’d have a lottery system where you could as easily have eight-year-olds teaching classes in high school. |
|||
::And I turned off my email so I won’t be reminded —nearly '''''half''''' the time people leave posts on my talk page—just how stupid people can be. |
|||
For instance, I know more about PEM fuel cells than probably several hundred million other people. I was the second employee hired (as an R&D scientist) at the only company in the U.S. that today has a truly viable commercial PEM fuel cell in the 5 kW range. Most of my 16 patents pertain to fuel cells. But I have literally not even ''looked'' (literally) at our [[Fuel cell]] article because it would be so frustrating arguing with kids who get their information out of [http://www.uci.edu/features/2010/10/images/futurebook_101025_01_unk_a472x315.jpg ''Popular Mechanics''.] I’m too busy in real life to be willing to put up with the aggravation. |
|||
::Wikipedia is borne out of the theory that hard-working people who actually know what the fuck they are doing have to share space with morons. It’s why, when I was writing really well-cited articles and ''actually talked with the Ph.D.s about the articles they wrote'' (something that one in a ''thousand'' wikipedians bother to do), they were absolutely flabbergasted over the notion that anyone would labor to write well-cited material that some 16-year-old kid could revert. [[User:Greg L|Greg L]] ([[User talk:Greg L#top|talk]]) 20:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
I think it is about time we abandoned the notion that because it is ''hard'' to develop a system for discerning and granting hierarchical editing privileges, we should forever give up on trying to do so. The project has grown far beyond its humble beginnings and it is time to encourage more professional-level contributions. |
|||
:::Greg, I'm afraid that article is really pretty spammy. Newell is a very famous graphics guy so I can't really get behind the PROD even though I'm relatively deletionistic about this type of article, but it doesn't come across as an attempt to present the topic neutrally. Can I ask if you have any personal connection to the product or company? If yes, please be aware of the [[WP:COI]] guideline. [[Special:Contributions/66.127.55.46|66.127.55.46]] ([[User talk:66.127.55.46|talk]]) 02:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Lest anyone suspect that I advocate this for my own benefit, I don’t. My motivations for being an editor on Wikipedia are different from many others and is certainly different from many experts in their respective fields. I tend to edit on articles ''that I <u>don’t</u> understand well'' and would like to learn more about. So I research the ''living hell'' out of a given subject matter over a number of months as I expand stubs; at least, that is what I ''used to do. [[User:Greg L|Greg L]] ([[User talk:Greg L#top|talk]]) 19:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::This subject is being debated [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents|other places]]. I see no reason to respond here. Your sincerely galactic moron nr 5681 --[[User:DuLithgow|duncan.lithgow]] ([[User talk:DuLithgow|talk]]) 14:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::One more thing, I agree with GregL that [[List of computer-aided design editors]] has a lot of poor entries. It is while I try and clean it up that I have to check if notability is established before I remove something from that comparison. This is why I keep coming back to issues of notability of CAD packages. --[[User:DuLithgow|duncan.lithgow]] ([[User talk:DuLithgow|talk]]) 14:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Notice == |
|||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. '''[[User:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFFF00;background-color: #0000FF;'>MBisanz</span>]]''' <sup>[[User talk:MBisanz|<span style='color: #FFA500;'>talk</span>]]</sup> 20:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
* While you’re busy worrying about my writing stuff here that everyone heard a thousand times in elementary school, why don’t you concern yourselves with a greater problem: time-wasting trolls like [[User:DuLithgow]] who make contributing to Wikipedia such a miserable experience? Goodbye. [[User:Greg L|Greg L]] ([[User talk:Greg L#top|talk]]) 20:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
**I'm sympathetic to an extent, but Wikipedia is not a venue for advertising and DuLithgow was probably reacting to the sales-pitch tone of that article. [[Special:Contributions/66.127.55.46|66.127.55.46]] ([[User talk:66.127.55.46|talk]]) 02:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
: GregL, please do me the service of looking at the articles I work on. Notice that they are mostly about exactly the subject of the comparison (which I started several years ago and have and troble maintaining because it gets full of spam/ads). Rather than calling me a troll how about taking my changes in good faith, lloking at how long I've contributed to wikipedia, and keep your views to yourself until you've looked enough into what you perceive as a problem to have an informed view. I spent a lot of time cleaning up the comparison (didn't finish) and you've just turned back the clock on me. --[[User:DuLithgow|duncan.lithgow]] ([[User talk:DuLithgow|talk]]) 18:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== May 2012 == |
|||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=|link=]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''48 hrs''' for personal attacks - even after being offerred the opportunity to retract. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' [[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]] '''</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track</font>]]) 00:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> |
Revision as of 21:08, 14 May 2012
It’s about time we had a serious discussion about having a tiered system of editors where there are hierarchies. While writing my articles, I actually look up the original papers and called the Ph.D.s who wrote them. I had done so extensively for an article on thermodynamics as well as one on a quantum-related subject. In both cases, the Ph.D.s graciously gave me a huge amount of help and seemed honored that someone would make the overture to them to seek their advise and feedback. In both cases, initial emails were followed up with a phone call or two, and then were followed up with emails so they could review proposed text I was preparing for the Wikipedia article in question. In both cases, they made valuable corrections because in physics, there are frequently exceptions to the rule that makes it important to be very precise with a given statement so as to not be more encompassing or sweeping than the facts support.
Why should I be digging this stuff up by going straight to the horses mouth? Why aren’t these Ph.D.s contributing directly to Wikipedia on an article discussing material they published in peer-reviewed science journals?
In both cases, the Ph.D.s were truly gobsmacked that anyone would bother to toil over article content that some 15-year-old kid could revert. These experts are amazed that Wikipedia works at all because of the ease with which ignorant or stupid people revert studious, factual truth because he or she read that Dick Cheney is a robot, or worse yet, something not quite so asinine so most non-specialist editors can’t tell on first sight that the allegation is B.S.
I can tell you from first-hand experience, since I am now a medical researcher specializing in bariatrics and metabolism, that there are numerous utterly laughable, fallacious assertions in our articles. It would be easy to fix them. But it is so hard to defend stuff because the true facts are supported by really complex material from text books and scientific papers that aren’t available as hyperlinks. Few experts are willing to endure the frustration of defending complex technical writing on Wikipedia.
It will be difficult to come up with a smooth-running process to graduate editors to hierarchies, but the notion that all editors are equally capable and knowledgeable is, of course, fallacious. The idea that “WP:Consensus” can address these differences is (sorta) valid, but it takes an extraordinary amount of time to deal with false allegations. Moreover, merely by being polite with faux wikipleasantries, the most exceedingly tendentious and verbose editors can virtually hijack entire venues of Wikipedia and cause hundreds of man-hours of time be devoted by the community to get things done.
The vague notion that “Everyone is granted equal editing privileges because we’re all equal, maaaaaan”, makes for fine music next to your VW bus, but creates an environment that prevents the most knowledgeable contributors from even considering contributing to the project.
It’s clear that a Ph.D. physicist who wrote a landmark paper on string theory knows more about a subject that most generalist editors who A) have high self-esteme, and B) a high-speed Internet connection. It’s equally clear that experts shouldn’t have to devote as much time proving a point of fact as does some 15-year-old kid with gobs of time on his hands. If everyone had equal knowledge (a clearly false assumption), we’d have a lottery system where you could as easily have eight-year-olds teaching classes in high school.
For instance, I know more about PEM fuel cells than probably several hundred million other people. I was the second employee hired (as an R&D scientist) at the only company in the U.S. that today has a truly viable commercial PEM fuel cell in the 5 kW range. Most of my 16 patents pertain to fuel cells. But I have literally not even looked (literally) at our Fuel cell article because it would be so frustrating arguing with kids who get their information out of Popular Mechanics. I’m too busy in real life to be willing to put up with the aggravation.
I think it is about time we abandoned the notion that because it is hard to develop a system for discerning and granting hierarchical editing privileges, we should forever give up on trying to do so. The project has grown far beyond its humble beginnings and it is time to encourage more professional-level contributions.
Lest anyone suspect that I advocate this for my own benefit, I don’t. My motivations for being an editor on Wikipedia are different from many others and is certainly different from many experts in their respective fields. I tend to edit on articles that I don’t understand well and would like to learn more about. So I research the living hell out of a given subject matter over a number of months as I expand stubs; at least, that is what I used to do. Greg L (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)