User talk:Matt rodgers2/reflection

Well done, Matt. Nice work. A few comments from me:

• You use the word "Wiki" once or twice in your article. I should point out that "Wiki", by itself, is probably not specific enough for your purposes. There is the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia Commons, and Wikipedias in dozens of different languages. It sounds like you mean "Wikipedia" whenever you say "Wiki"— let me encourage you to have a second look at that.
• You mention low-status and high-status individuals/ contributors. Wikipedia has often emphasized the egalitarian nature of its structure: your "vote" on something, even as a newbie, really means every bit as much as mine does, no matter how many edits I may have under my belt. What I DO have is experience, and I am able to bring that to bear from time to time and in certain ways (and still, there are vast stretches of Wikipedia activity and decision-making I have never touched and would make a fool of myself if I wandered into and started making commentary). I also have a kind of "credit rating" which other editors can check by looking at my edit history to see of there is any chance I know what I am talking about. An editor with a brief edit history making, say, a deletion request might have his or her proposal given more scrutiny (if it seems strangely worded or lacks the usual format) than one coming from an editor making the same proposal worded the exact same way but who has a long history of contributions (though such "credit checks" are not common, and deletion discussions are supposed to stand or fall on the merits of the arguments given, not the history of those who participate in them).
• Last, I wanted to emphasize the reasons you got my attention and support. Having one's first article nominated for deletion often "burns" newcomers to Wikipedia, causing us to lose potentially good long-term editors who never come back. This is all-volunteer, so when a good writer goes away, there is little incentive to return and face the wrath of the system again. However, neither can we let new articles on non-notable subjects stand "just because we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings." That's also unacceptable. What impressed me was your response to the deletion proposal. Instead of being defensive or angry (the usual responses, and though very understandable, not very useful in a debate) you acknowledged the possibility that your subject might not appear to meet the notability requirements, and promised to bring the necessary documentation into the article as quickly as possible. That is uncommon, and though I had made the nomination and stood by it in terms of what appeared to be a lack of notability, I was hoping I would be undone by the inclusion of new evidence. New evidence appeared, and the nomination failed. I am pleased. I hope you are, too! (though I wonder, if it HAD succeeded and your article had been deleted, would you have felt burned and not wanted to ever try again? Because that is the outcome I would have feared, whether or not the deletion was justified). And so you have jumped a significant hurdle here on Wikipedia. I congratulate you. I myself had my own first article deleted— though not because the subject was not notable (ironically) but because he formally requested I take it down (at least one other editor in the deletion discussion suggested that this shouldn't matter and that notability is notability, the subject's wishes be damned— he had a very good point). Since then I've gotten a bit better at article writing, and I know how to write an article that will never be proposed for deletion. I also never choose subjects that have dubious notability, and that certainly helps. I guess that means I lack bravery. Because the brave thing to do is to risk having one's work doubted and be willing to find ways to defend it, with the possibility that the defense might fail. But then Wikipedia is not supposed to be a proving ground for dubious work, it supposed to be "behind the 8 ball", as they say. You stand on the 8-ball you are going to get smacked! Standing behind it is often better, and causes less work for everyone. All-volunteer. No one is looking to take on more work just for the fun of it. Except sometimes. Like creating this talk page for your reflections on your first article experience. You have been given a great deal of credit for your accomplishment, and my own investment is evidence of that. NOW, however, I must go feed the cats! KDS4444^Talk 19:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)