User:HereToHelp/Bureaucracy and WikiProjects don’t write articles
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
More then once I've seen somebody create a new WikiProject or Collaboration (henceforth projects), create a few templates, write up the project page, and then leave and expect other editors to improve the actual articles. I've seen too many projects die because Wikipedia ediors just don't want to write articles. True, I also work mostly outside of the articles, but I freely admit that, and I try to have some article edits. What bugs me is the people who think they can pioneer a project and then retire from the scene to let others do the work. Learn, people, that bureaucracy and WikiProjects don’t write articles. People do.
De facto classification of projects
[edit]No matter how everyone claims to behave, I have found that there are only three types of WikiProjects when it comes down to how active they are:
- Inactive projects are really dead— nobody cares about them and hey are left to rot on valuable server space.
- Semi-Inactive projects are by far the most common—they are dead fires with a few embers still lit. There may be a few people who watch the page, or work loosely together, but nothing serious.
- Active projects are the rare ones—those that turn out FA after FA. But, unfortunately, I can only think of of few examples of each one. Although it's impossible, all projects should be this active, or more so.
So what?
[edit]These inactive or semi-inactive projects are useless. Here's why:
- They take up server space with their project page and templates;
- They delude others into thinking they are active; and most importantly
- They focus on the bureaucracy of writing articles and never actually get around to writing them.
We are "first and foremost an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community." (Emphasis in original.) Although there are no binding decisions, people should work to support the projects they found. We do not need Portals and both types of projects if the articles are no better.
I know we need some administrative users (not necessarily admins in all cases, but they often are) to keep the place running. But there is no point in barnstars, the department of fun, and, yes, half of our policies and guidelines (those that deal with articles) if the articles don't get any better.
I know that I don't help out much with articles. But at least I don't claim to.--HereToHelp 12:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)