User:AmaryllisGardener/Wikipedia

This page is reserved for my thoughts about Wikipedia, and my history of editing here.

My thoughts about Wikipedia

General WikiBeliefs

I believe Wikipedia has the potential to become the best, most neutral, well-sourced source of information out there. The one thing I think is the most important? Neutrality, something I value dearly. I don't like to see articles that have things slanted any direction, even my direction. My value of neutrality/equality also extends to users. While I believe that admins should be an example for non-admins, I also believe that you should be equally respected regardless of user rights. Admin or new user, IP or rollbacker, reviewer or bureaucrat, it doesn't matter. What matters is what you say. Of course, everyone should be treated with respect. From my experience, the Teahouse, NPP, and AfC have the friendliest atmospheres of just about anywhere on WP. RfCs, RfAs, and AfDs are the worst usually.

I strongly believe in WP:NPA. I believe that personal attacks (insults, namecalling, etc.) should not be tolerated, and we should be stricter when it comes to PAs, say, after the 3rd time with warnings. Of course, what I believe and what we must go by are two very different things.

Specific

My thoughts on adminship: they're janitors that have gone through background checks. Admins should be good examples for everyone, but they're only humans, so they make stupid mistakes, just like me. Adminship is no trophy, and it should not be used as an advantage over other editors. Sometimes it may seem like I treat adminship like an award, but I don't. I simply get have very strong preferences as to who should be admins because of how much good a user can do for the wiki.
My thoughts on the user and user talk space: users should have their say in the design of their user page, but other users have the right to remove personal attacks inappropriate content (I could go on and on about what that is). Then the user talk page, I don't mind if you reply to whatever message on my talk page, just as long as your message adheres to rules that apply to all talk spaces (Civility and NPA). Insert yourself into whatever you want to on my tp, I love WikiJaguars, and I'm one myself. If you call me an "idiot" or whatever, it doesn't matter whether it was at AfD or on my tp, all that matters is that you called me an idiot. I don't agree with banning certain users from your talk page, it shouldn't matter who leaves you a message, but what the user has to say (this opinion of mine applies only to when a user comes up and says "[user] is banned from editing my tp]" and doesn't apply to users that have an actual iban.
My thoughts on the big bad b word (badgering). IMO, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not everyone is immune from discussions with other editors about their opinions. These opinions of mine mostly apply to RfA, where people start crying when someone questions their oppose. It can start getting inappropriate when one editor says "I don't want to talk anymore" (and not the "Let's stop arguing, but I'm still right" kind of statement), and the other editor keeps arguing, that's the only scenario where I think that the term "badgering" can be used appropriately.
My thoughts on templating the regulars: If a "regular" has vandalized a page, I don't think they should be "templated", but I would leave a message on their talk page asking what's going on, because it could be an immature sibling/friend of theirs, or it could be that they've been hacked. When it comes to personal attacks, I have no strong preference, but I do think that a personal hand-typed (is that a word?) warning would be best.
My thoughts on Wikipedia as a "social network", first of all, it's not one, and hopefully it'll never be one. I think that interactions with other editors that have nothing to do with the actual improvement of the encyclopedia is beneficial, as it doesn't do any harm, and it strengthens their relationships, and working together in harmony is always a good thing. The problem is when people don't improve the encyclopedia at all, and exclusively use Wikipedia to "chat" or do something similar. Obviously, those people are not here to improve the encyclopedia. I personally would not object to having a "Like" and/or "+1" button on articles, and at the worst it would not destroy Wikipedia as some believe.
My thoughts on expressing political opinions on userpages: As with any subject, politics has its share of userboxes. Now, some are perfectly fine with political userboxes, while others view them as polarizing and contrary to the purpose of the userpage. While I personally do not state my political opinions, I think common sense is needed in assessing whether expressing them is harmful. I would say that the style and tone of userbox plays heavy into whether it is appropriate. For example, it is my opinion that larger than usual userboxes, especially with capitalized text, are inapproprate as opposed to normal userboxes with regular text. Also, I find that they need to be strictly factual about the user, not with the tone of shouting or preaching.
My thoughts on deletionism vs. inclusionism: I personally consider myself neither in general. However, I deviate from the norm in some areas, some I'm deletionist, some I'm inclusionist. For example, I have a deletionist view of "trendy" sensational talking points that easily pass GNG (which oddly seem to be mostly on political subjects), like Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph or Covfefe. On the other hand, I have an inclusionist view on fictional character articles. I wouldn't expand these into articles because I know currently the consensus would be against it, but I would like to see independent articles on subjects like Rainbow Dash, Fennekin, Silver the Hedgehog, and many others.
My thoughts on specific issues of political and religious neutrality: I find that Wikipedia wildly varies in terms of neutrality, and in different aspects and viewpoints. There is no clear ideology that prevails on all issues, but I would define Wikipedia as generally center-left leaning. I find that (in my opinion) Islamic and Hindu topics are treated quite neutrally, while topics relating to Christianity vary. I find that in general, non-scientific topics are treated either neutrally or pro-Christian, while articles relating to Christian attitudes towards science are staunchly anti-Christian, even more specifically topics like Young Earth creationism. While I do not fit myself into any of the categories on the "creationist-evolutionist" spectrum, I find that several of the categories are treated unfairly. I would like to see it become more neutral, but I understand that general consensus in the past has established these articles as being finely worded. On to politics, I think that Wikipedia is stellar. While that may seem almost impossible to adequately neutralize such figures that the public is polarized in opinion to as Donald Trump as Hillary Clinton, I am satisfied with the way in which these articles are dealt with.
My thoughts on In the news: Even though I strive to contribute to ITN discussions to better the process, I have criticisms about the process. Wikipedia is clear that it is not a newspaper, yet there it is, trending news right on the main page. This creates confusion I believe, as "In the news" seems to suggest that news is a big part of Wikipedia. I believe that Wikipedia is indeed different than just any news source, but we need to admit - we're sort of a news source as it is now. And I don't really see much of a problem with that, as long as we're careful.

My history of editing here

I joined on December 28, 2012. Within my first day, I created two articles (both of which, Crassula capitella and Impatiens ecornuta, are still here), and didn't create another article until May 2013 (Crassula lactea) To start with I didn't get involved in discussions and kept to cleanup/copyediting and updating things like Alexa ranks, tennis rankings, and IUCN Red List statuses (going from versions 2.3 to 3.1). I was tagging articles for CSD within my first month of editing (most of them were correctly tagged). I got involved in counter-vandalism in September 2013, and that's when I started being more active (while I was never "unactive", I spent most of my time on the Scots language Wikipedia from February 2013 to September 2013.) In October, I made my first WikiFriend, EuroCarGT. From November 2013 to January 2014, I created alot (I mean a lot) of stubs on settlements like Yeyuan (they weren't created carelessly, though!) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatima Medical Center was my first AfD participation in December 2013; since then, I've participated in 105 AfDs with an accuracy of 94.7% (as of January 22, 2015).

The year of 2014 was one of learning, I did a little of everything, CSD-tagging, copyediting, cleanup, AfC reviewing, counter-vandalism, Teahouse hosting, AfD participation, you name it. In June, my first GA, Mikkeli, was promoted. Also that month, I got my first barnstar, from my friend Davey2010, after I alerted him about his signature not being in line with policy (I don't think that part's even in the policy anymore, but oh well). A month later I got a second barnstar. I also considered adminship in 2014 several times (I feel I could be doing alot more with counter-vandalism and cleanup with adminship), but opted to wait. In the following months, I faced drama and disputes, so that was rough, but it's something I've learned to handle better now, and some of the editors I was involved in a dispute with are now my friends. In Fall 2014, I created some KML files, (that's right, things like this.) In December, I learned among other things that practicing passive-aggressive behavior is not being civil. I used to be sensitive to other editors' insults, but now I've gotten used to it, and I just carry on, instead of arguing or something like that. Also in December, my second GA, Kajaani, was promoted (with thanks to User:Dr. Blofeld), and near the end of the month, I signed up for the WikiCup.

In January 2015, my third GA, caracal, was promoted (going toward my WikiCup score). In early February 2015, I officially gave up my hopes of adminship for the next year. On February 9, 2015, I reached 10,000 edits. On February 15, caracal, my GA and main score item for staying in the WikiCup, was demoted and I lost my points for it in the WikiCup because the article had plagiarism that was there before I worked on it. I was then discouraged from continuing in the WikiCup. I still made it to round two. At the end of February, an admin that was one of my role models here turned out to think of himself as being above everyone else, especially those who aren't admins, and so I lost my respect for him. In March, I took a week-long WikiBreak, after being accused of "trolling" by an administrator that I previously respected. In April, I failed to return to my previous editing pace, because of the events that took place in February and March, RL work, and because of me spending my time online elsewhere (Wikidata, scowiki, simplewiki, pihwiki, OSM, even IMDb). In late 2016, real life anxiety problems prevented me from returning to my normal editing patterns.

In 2017, I started to return back to my old work, contributing to ITN/C, anti-vandalism patrol, clean-up work, and AfD. As far as big events go on the wiki, 2017 has been a year of peace and harmony.

WikiFriends

If I missed you, let me know! ;)

Inactive Wikipedians to be remembered

Thank you for taking time to read this. :)