Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 47) (bot |
SweetNightmares (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
Also, there have been AFDs, TFDs, and other deletion types. Moreover, there have been requested moves and move reviews, prompting us to question stability of Wikipedia. And... how long will libraries stay open, and what will happen to print and online sources? Online articles nowadays require fee for viewership. So should Wikipedia be technocracy? If not, shall there be a policy about technocracy? If not, essay? --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 06:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC) |
Also, there have been AFDs, TFDs, and other deletion types. Moreover, there have been requested moves and move reviews, prompting us to question stability of Wikipedia. And... how long will libraries stay open, and what will happen to print and online sources? Online articles nowadays require fee for viewership. So should Wikipedia be technocracy? If not, shall there be a policy about technocracy? If not, essay? --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 06:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC) |
||
:This is something I have been thinking about for a while. I've been registered on here for over six years now and as I've come to be acquainted with the site, this is one of the primary things that has bothered me, despite my ability to learn and understand second languages/code: users are expected to be 100% fluent in wikicode in order to edit here. You're right, by the way, it is basically rocket science, even though [[WP:Introduction]] claims "It is a special type of website designed to make collaboration easy." Having complex templates defeats the purpose of the site, which is the beautiful fact that anyone can edit. This should ''instantly'' be recognized as a kind of [[barrier to entry]]. |
|||
:To elaborate on the title of this section: there exist tech-savvy users who take pride for one reason or another in being more Wiki-literate than others, and who prize convoluted templates and other features of Wiki markup over simplicity and streamlining. In order to keep [[C:File:ActiveWikipedians.PNG|our faltering numbers]] up, it should be a long-term goal of the project to trim not only such templates, but unnecessary and sometimes wordy policies, not to mention condense processes for such things as merging. However, [[User:Wer900/There is a cabal|there is also a cabal]] that exists primarily to write policy, and if it fails to address the many problems that are starting to become manifest, this project will succumb to being copied and/or replaced by its very nature. {{ping|FrankDev}} I know you haven't been very active this year, but you might be interested in this conversation per your creation of [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a technocracy]], and {{ping|Folantin|Geogre}} for your comments left [[User:Geogre/Talk archive 24|here]]. - <span style="font-family:Mistral,'Brush Script MT','MV Boli',calibri;text-shadow:gray 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em;">[[User:SweetNightmares|<span style="color:#FF003C">Sweet</span>]][[User talk:SweetNightmares|<span style="color:#400e36">Nightmares</span>]]</span> 00:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== WP:CRYSTAL and the redirect == |
== WP:CRYSTAL and the redirect == |
Revision as of 00:56, 16 August 2014
Not a Social Network
I understand that the wikipedia is not a social network. But it may take some time for me to fully understand what the wiki is and what it isn't. Especially given that the other wikipedias I contribute to, apparently allow me to add comments that the wikipedians here would flag as 'social network' comments.
Also sometimes myself (and I bet some others) have the urge to leave those sorts of comments on related pages anyhow. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 08:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Applying rules judiciously
I think that there should be some clarification in the What Wikipedia is not article to instruct users on how to apply rules in a judicious manner. Some users may consider a WP:NOT rule as a one-size-fits-all application, while others may take deeper consideration as to whether the rule should be applied or whether a particular section or paragraph that the user considers applying a rule actually has merit to the article and should remain as is. By informing Wikipedians as to how to properly judge whether a WP:NOT rule applies to an article, it could alleviate some conflicts with the article's structure that may occur between users. TVtonightOKC (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not a technocracy"?
I have been questioning usefulness of templates lately. Templates are supposed to be useful, non-abusive, and simple. I found some to be none of these. Somehow, template-fanatics oppose deletion on any kind, like one template that is transcluded in no more than three pages. (Three pages!!) People are expected to be computer scientists or engineers, especially on templates. Lately, Wikipedia is supposed to be readable to general readers and educational. It is free editing, but it also requires donations. Editors are also expected to be experienced and quick-learners on templates. Sometimes, learning unnecessary and complex templates is frustrating.
As for wikilinking, it is very simple, but sometimes not necessary, unless it is for readers who generally should learn more about one topic or another. And tables have been used for easy editing and great styling. But it consumes more bytes than words alone. Well... people are expected (in a common sense) to format headings, like == Level 2 ==
, and to do other HTML codings.
Also, there have been AFDs, TFDs, and other deletion types. Moreover, there have been requested moves and move reviews, prompting us to question stability of Wikipedia. And... how long will libraries stay open, and what will happen to print and online sources? Online articles nowadays require fee for viewership. So should Wikipedia be technocracy? If not, shall there be a policy about technocracy? If not, essay? --George Ho (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is something I have been thinking about for a while. I've been registered on here for over six years now and as I've come to be acquainted with the site, this is one of the primary things that has bothered me, despite my ability to learn and understand second languages/code: users are expected to be 100% fluent in wikicode in order to edit here. You're right, by the way, it is basically rocket science, even though WP:Introduction claims "It is a special type of website designed to make collaboration easy." Having complex templates defeats the purpose of the site, which is the beautiful fact that anyone can edit. This should instantly be recognized as a kind of barrier to entry.
- To elaborate on the title of this section: there exist tech-savvy users who take pride for one reason or another in being more Wiki-literate than others, and who prize convoluted templates and other features of Wiki markup over simplicity and streamlining. In order to keep our faltering numbers up, it should be a long-term goal of the project to trim not only such templates, but unnecessary and sometimes wordy policies, not to mention condense processes for such things as merging. However, there is also a cabal that exists primarily to write policy, and if it fails to address the many problems that are starting to become manifest, this project will succumb to being copied and/or replaced by its very nature. @FrankDev: I know you haven't been very active this year, but you might be interested in this conversation per your creation of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a technocracy, and @Folantin and Geogre: for your comments left here. - SweetNightmares 00:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL and the redirect
In terms of "unannounced" products, it is and has always been the general rule to not create an article, or even a section of an article that contains any "unannounced" product. This does not, and should not, be interpreted to include a redirect of the said product, it has been discussed in multiple reliable sources. I suggest that in the section titled "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" be amended to include this. In my interpretation, the line of that section that reads, Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable.
, already confirms this, but I suggest making it a bit more clear to the reader, so as not to have any major disruption.--JOJ Hutton 15:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)