User:RadioKAOS/Sandbox/Philosophy

(WARNING: This turned into the essay I've been putting off for months/years. I actually had a specific question where I was seeking your opinion as an admin on something. I'll start another thread for that.)

Was checking in on further Tammie Wilson discussion (and why this user won't take the discussion to Talk:Tammie Wilson like you and I both suggested). Stumbled upon the RfB discussion and your comments on serving readers. I think that a healthy percentage of the individuals who actively maintain this site perhaps fail to grasp the magnitude of Wikipedia's role as a go-to site for a lot of "average people". These people are just looking for information, they're not obsessed (or maybe more appropriately, not concerned) with the philosophy, culture or policies of Wikipedia.

Remember the Denis Leary stand-up bit about the kid working at 7-11 with the 5 pounds of steel hanging from his tongue and his pants down to his knees? Except these days, it would go like this: "Oh, I have Aspergers." "Oh, yeah? *smack* *smack* *smack* From looking at you, I would say it was more like Assmuncher's." The point I'm attempting to make here is that the credibility of this information and its contributors is called into question every day. I'm talking by people out in the real world, not just a few disgruntled former editors/admins who run attack blogs. Unfortunately, there are those on here whose activity reminds me of the other part of that Leary bit: "You're not in the Wu-Tang Clan. You're not even in A Tribe Called Quest, asshole". PICK UP YOUR PANTS!!!

Anyway, enough of that. For nearly a full year now, my primary web access has come through this aging phone. I can't accomplish on this what I can on my other devices, but this device is the only one with a full time Internet connection. I have to let a lot of things pass by, or else "Wikipedia career" would take on a whole new meaning. I like working and paying bills. Something about a "ditch the cable commercial"-like existence in the Johansen Expressway homeless camp, .357 in one hand, phone held upward with the other hand towards the nearest cell tower, doesn't exactly appeal to me.

A lot of contributions to the encyclopaedia don't appear to have been made with a general audience in mind. I see more and more articles, which individually or collectively, serve less and less purpose. Too many articles that too few people care about, to the point where many become free advertising for marginal subjects. Too many articles which further beg the question I've been asking for years and have yet to receive a satisfactory answer: that being, if the actual information is elsewhere and this article is just serving as a portal, then what do I need Wikipedia for?

I also find dangerous the attitude I've seen that we've already covered all the notable topics there are to be had. Witness the current state of WP:ALASKA, where there are over 3,500 articles. Too many of them are nothing more than entries in some U.S. government database, with a few templates thrown in as turd polish. There's still tons of work to be done to identify and create articles on notable Alaskan topics. I suppose it's easy to plaster the name of Cheryll Heinze all over Wikipedia in response to the 10 minutes worth of headlines she received (to the point of giving the appearance that she's perceived to be more notable because she died in a plane crash - don't even get me started on that again), while ignoring significantly notable Alaskans such as Jesse Carr and Simeon Oliver (just to pick two names, as there are far too many in this latter category).

I'm sure that many of us really are hampered by time considerations. It amounts to another little bullshit platitude to state that "Wikipedia has no time limit" when you realize that numerous individual Wikipedia contributors do have time limits, and that free and easy access to quality source information also often comes with time limits. Too many articles scream out "Hey, this article needs to exist. Sorry about it being such useless garbage, but this is all I could find with my Google search." Even so, I still see a greater problem of editors who write more for their own tastes, oblivious to who may actually be reading it. For example, there are multiple RS to establish that "Bad, Bad Leroy Brown" was the inspiration for the ring names of both Roland Daniels (Leroy Brown) and Sylvester Ritter (Junkyard Dog). I am sufficiently ancient enough that I was around during Jim Croce's heyday. I would easily suspect that not to be the case with the average person who watches pro wrestling today. In fact, I would easily suspect that these people would espouse a belief along the lines of "Oh, Jim Croce is some old dead guy who wasn't involved in the business. Who gives a shit?"RadioKAOS (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)