User talk:Jonny-mt/CSD

Consider This

I would remove the cute little kitty and change the tone of your language. You might think it's cute but in reality its condescending to pretty much anyone, especially those who have had their articles deleted. If you are trying to stand on the moral high ground by "protecting" Wikipedia's integrity, you might want to consider adjusting the language and image you promote in your communications with other users so that you don't sound like such an elitist (insert your own derogatory). Zenasprime (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not attempting to protect anything at all--I just found that I was being asked the same questions multiple times, which meant that I spent a fairly good deal of time giving the same answers. I appreciate your criticism, but the page was put up in an attempt to explain in very clear language why I tag items for deletion and what can be done to prevent it in the future--judging by the fall-off in the number of complaints and questions following its creation, it seems to be doing the job pretty well. As for the humor/cuteness of the page...well, I find that people respond much better to a little bit of genuine personality than they do to cold, sterile prose :) --jonny-m t 15:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever think that the reason people don't bother responding is that they have simply given up? You do realize that most people don't want to contribute just so that they can fight useless internet battles with site administrators don't you? The general consensus is "why bother?" when only a handful of editors ever get to contribute because they have the right friends or know how to game the system. What do you think is going to happen when nobody cares enough to bother contributing content to Wikipedia? The impression is fast becoming that the site is run by a handful of elitists who's policy is more important then the content or the people they serve. Your attitude is proof of that. Zenasprime (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had chalked it up both to the presence of this page and the fact that I started to shift my efforts away from newpage patrol and more towards other areas of the project. Believe it or not, though, it's actually pretty simple to get an article into Wikipedia--make sure it's been written about by a reliable source and then write an article explaining why it was written about. If there's an impression that only the articles of the regulars are kept, that's simply because we've been around longer and know what is required of articles. Although it's all laid out fairly clearly in WP:V and WP:N, this page is simply an attempt to make that knowledge a little bit more accessible.

I totally disagree with your perspective. There are plenty of examples of articles that do not meet WP:V or WP:N and when this is pointed out you get Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists as if this somehow makes it right. There are also examples of editors deleting content in which they have no expertise. How can anyone have any faith in Wikipedia when these discrepancies exist? The icing on the cake are people, such as yourself, who have made a point of presenting themselves an elitist fashion. When confronted with this, I simply throw my hands in the air and say to myself, "let the jerks have their precious website all to themselves." Zenasprime (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might also like to know that my first attempt at an article was actually deleted through discussion--my next attempt fared much better. While it's true that the highest quality new articles are generally created by regulars, I see a lot of solid content being added by complete newbies during newpage patrol (a particularly good recent example is John M. Reich; the creation of this article was the user's 7th edit), and so it's hardly fair to say that special connections or what have you are required.

In my opinion, no one person should be required to make their first attempt at an article successful. This is where our philosophies diverge. I do not believe, as you apparently do, that Wikipedia is a collection of individual works that should be held up for peer review. Instead, I believe that Wikipedia is a collective effort. If I simply wanted to write an article, on my own, I could simply write up a webpage on the subject and have it freely accessible on the internet. Google will provide the users with the ability of finding the page. Wikipedia, on the other hand, being a collective effort by design, provides other users with the ability to contribute to that articles worth to the community as a whole. Unless there some sort of individual reward of notoriety for writing an article, I don't really see your point as a valid one. Zenasprime (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, though, that your dissatisfaction with Wikipedia seems to be at level much more fundamental than anything that can be solved here. Have you thought about writing an essay to outline your points of dissatisfaction (you probably already know about Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing)? I'm sure more people would read that than anything we could write here. --jonny-m t 06:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a writer so no, I wouldn't find any satisfaction in writing an essay on the topic. I'm pretty sure that others more skilled then myself have the ability to do so with better results. It's apparent from your statements that you believe that Wikipedia is a collection of individualist writings that can be approved by a peer review process. I disagree with this philosophy. I feel that is it contrary to the design of Wikipedia and that this individualist philosophy it detrimental to the collective's long term survival.

In respect to Wikipedia's intended design, I am making comments directly in regards to the article in question, namely your CSD response article. I disagree with it's wording in that I believe it is very unfriendly to those you are seeking to communicate with. As such, I have made comments in the discussion of that article indicating what I believe to be improvements in your article. You see, since it is my philosophy that Wikipedia is a collective effort, not an individualist "pat me on the back for doing a good job" effort, that my contribution would be to point out the flaws in your article, namely it's unfriendly nature, in hopes that you would, though discussion and consensus, agree with my assessment and make the changes. Zenasprime (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be honest, you haven't done a particularly good job of convincing me that my page is out of place. You have called me an "elistist ___" and a "total jerk", but I let those personal attacks slide because I was interested to get some feedback and engage in discussion with someone who doesn't seem to hold the same views that I do. The feedback thus far, however, has simply consisted of sweeping statements about the language--language that I chose specifically to try and make the often arcane explanations found in Wikipedia policies more accessable to complete newbies, remembering that we all were new at some point or another. I think the language and explanations I wrote are much more effective than sterile policy, and so far you have yet to convince me otherwise.

With regard to your other points, I'll respond as follows:

Wikipedia is a collective effort, yes, but debate will only get you so far. While it's true that some well-established topics require careful debate in order to make any further progress (see Talk:Muhammad), Wikipedia encourages all editors to be bold in what they do. This is an [[WP:BRD|indispensible part of the editing process.
WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument against deletion simply because those other items aren't the ones under discussion. Take, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Advance Wars COs, an article I nominated for deletion. One of the commenters against deleting the article used exactly that argument, citing a specific article--a few weeks later, the other article was deleted.
I can't address your concern about the lack of experts, as that point is both one of Wikipedia's greatest strengths and its greatest weakness. By lowering the barrier to entry, we ensure that a wide variety of viewpoints and interests are represented in our content. However, this (combined with the verification policy required to ensure that the project is viable as an encyclopedia) also means that experts and regular users are essentially on the same level when it comes to editing, with the latter only holding the advantage of being familiar with the subject and potential sources for verification.

But naturally, all of this is my interpretation. Thoughts? --jonny-m t 04:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]