Wikipedia talk:Dig

Moral

Lbmixpro (talk · contribs) added a see-also Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep with edit sum I guess this is what the essay means. add if I'm wrong

Well, like most morality fables, more than one moral can be drawn. I suppose that is one of them.

This essay by Aaron Swartz indicates that most of the content of Wikipedia has been written by users with very few edits. Heavy contributors -- those with thousands of edits -- contribute relatively little to the project, although most of the edits. We (I must include myself) spend most of our time policy-wonking, sidewalk-superintending, and generally screwing around with the hard work that others do.

It seems that new contributors to Wikipedia learn very quickly that their work will not only be edited mercilessly; it will be edited heartlessly, deleted thoughtlessly, and in the bargain, rude comments will be left for them to chew or choke on. Most decide never to return; some remain -- and decide not to invest the time and effort to contribute substantially. Instead of risking themselves, exposing themselves to vicious criticism, they join the critics.

Is this a good thing? John Reid 21:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have found it really frustrating that some editors post very negative comments on the talk pages after a substantial amount of new content is written in a section. For example, after I substantially increased the detail on the daily work tasks and duties of a bodyguard, several editors wrote comments stating that this was a bunch of "ass-hattery" and other negative comments. People, if you think that the new text is too verbose, has speculative elements, etc., open the article and edit it to improve it. Don't just put "attacks" on the talk page saying what a load of #$#***#@% the most recent addition is.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Subject area guidelines

Hi, One of my "instruction creep" pet peeves is when subject workgroups create NEW RULES that apply to the articles on a given topic. For example, one of the Film article projects created a rule that Featured Article-class film articles cannot have quotations in the lede. Now, as a general suggestion, I understand this point....I think it is fair to suggest that the lede of a film article should not start with a 2 paragraph quote. However, some editors interpreted this rule in a very strict fashion, and they would even revert the addition of three of four words in quotes (For example....in the lede of a film article, if you wrote something like............Umberto Eco called Splendour in Venice a "carnal treatise on immorality" (silly made up example), the material in quotes would get removed, along with a warning that "we can't have quotes in the lede".....It seems that in some cases, suggestions get ossified (in editor's minds) into strict rules.........................In another example, the WP:GUNS- firearms working group has decided that popular culture sections should be avoided in firearms articles. Now, the intent of this rule is good....they don't want every firearms article to have a huge section which lists every appearance of the firearm in every film, TV show, and comic book. However, some editors have interpreted the rule to be a blanket prohibition on "In Popular Culture" sections in Wikipedia firearms articles. This means that even if a firearms article has an "In popular culture" section in which every statement is sourced to a major film critic, cultural studies professor, etc, editors will erase the section.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)