User talk:Redfiredragon
To whom it might concern...
Like myself, I assume many newcomers who decide to submit suggestions on Wikipedia do so because they arrive at an article concerning a topic they are familiar with and realize information they find important is missing.
Due to the semi-anonymous nature of contributing to the content, it is inevitable that proponents of an infinite array of opinions will attack opposing views in any way they can with little risk of being exposed.
I have myself been a moderator of forums with 10000+ members for more than ten years, and know first hand that without strict enforcement of guidelines requiring civil behavior and on-topic posts through the diligent efforts of volunteer moderators, everything would quickly have descended into chaos.
Our moderators are however also bound by the same code, requiring them to respond with clear references to the rules of conduct - regardless if the post is an excusable minor transgression or clearly ill intended. For a moderator to exchange insults or appear to ban or delete content in a whim without backing in the group rules would be absolutely unacceptable.
So when I finally decided I might be able to shine a light on events that I found relevant to a Wikipedia article, I made sure to include the original sources of the information and formulated it in neutral and unbiased language - hoping for a response from senior editors on my suggestion for improvement.
The response baffled me. I was fully prepared to be questioned on the quality of the sources, criticized for the structure of the text or a number of other things one can object to when a stranger without established merits claim to have information that contradict the apparent consensus.
After all, if a "madman" approached me and said he knew the location of a pile of gold, i would dismiss it in an instant. If, however, he volunteered the GPS coordinates - and the existence of the gold could quickly be confirmed with just the click on a button I would be inclined to check it out.
As an engineer with 30 years of professional experience and a relatively wide range of knowledge and interest in scientific, social and philosophical topics I admit I take some pride in staying up do date on events and issues of long term and some times global importance. I also take pride in critical thinking and the reliance on facts and verification when faced with the stream of "news" that the information age is bombarding us with.
That pride is probably the main reason I never expected my attempt at contributing to Wikipedia being labeled "Driveby SPA fakenews soapbox cloaked as editing proposal" and instantly removed.
Although I understand that editors face a constant barrage of deliberately falsified proposals, I sincerely hope this is not a common response to well-meaning attempts to improve the quality of Wikipedia. Such a signal would be very unfortunate for the reputation and future of this important endeavour.
Hoping for an explanation for the dismissal i inquired in friendly words to the editor for some help understanding the reaction and advice on how to proceed, assuming I had somehow offended or broken a rule that wasn't immediately apparent to me.
After a few minutes my inquiry on the editor's "talk" page was also removed - without reason or other response.
I've been relying on Wikipedia as a relatively credible source of information for many years, and out of concern for the invaluable service it represents I sincerely hope that this is an unfortunate incident due to the serious and hotly debated topic of the article I commented on, and not a common response when newcomers arrive with information they believe would positively contribute to humanity's largest open knowledgebase.
Fortunately, Wikipedia's excellent document tracking ensures that both my suggestion, the response and subsequent inquiry to the editor is preserved for posterity and future judgement. Should the content I provided some day be proven to be untrue, it would be a little embarrassing - but I don't have problems with accepting proof that I have been mistaken. Every correction of a flaw in character or position is a gift to be appreciated.
I do not expect an apology from the editor in question, but I would really value the constructive response that I was refused - and that could help guide me and everyone else who wish to contribute, without risking an unpleasant meeting with a sharp bladed invisible fan when they stick their head out of the reading crowd.
If you're an editor with experience in these matters and have chosen to endure this long through my frustrated rant, I hope you would be so kind that you could show the way in stead of shutting the light.
I have deliberately excluded references to the article and editor in question, fearing that may worsen the situation and cause more trouble - but I would gladly provide it if requested.
Yes, I am a stranger, but as Oscar Wilde so eloquently put it: "One can always be kind to people about whom one cares nothing."
Sincerly, RedFireDragon (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Redfiredragon, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Redfiredragon! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC) |