| Revision as of 21:42, 30 May 2012 editTheSoundAndTheFury (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,994 edits ]← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:44, 30 May 2012 edit undoTheSoundAndTheFury (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,994 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| I have two longstanding fields of interest: one is cultural theory and criticism, philosophy, and the humanities; the other is Chinese politics, religion, and history. |
I have two longstanding fields of interest: one is cultural theory and criticism, philosophy, and the humanities; the other is Chinese politics, religion, and history. Since becoming a Wikipedian I've also become interested in ]. Misplaced Pages is a complex place, especially when it comes to contentious topics where editors have strong opinions and are committed to seeing the Misplaced Pages pages on those topics represent those opinions. I used to be quite sanguine about the encyclopedia, but the issue of persistent POV-pushing is a difficult and complex one to deal with. No suggestions for a solution to that problem, though the thoughts ] seem a good start. This is mainly in reference to the ] family of articles, with which I have been involved. | ||
| Misplaced Pages is interesting for another reason, I guess it is a kind of ] though it is not all that serious: it is simply that some types of articles get little attention. For example, the articles on ], generally, are poorly sourced, often poorly written, and are not all that useful (I'm not speaking of all of them, but a goodly number). I can only guess that this reflects the biases of Wikipedians writ large, because they just don't care about that stuff so much. In other article spaces, an unsourced sentence won't be allowed for a second. On ], however, you get sentences like ''"There are some elements to think about when choosing the form of payment. When submitting an offer, the acquiring firm should consider other potential bidders and think strategically."'' as though this were a freaking how-to speech! I want to build out some of those articles with good sources and make them more informative. | Misplaced Pages is interesting for another reason, I guess it is a kind of ] though it is not all that serious: it is simply that some types of articles get little attention. For example, the articles on ], generally, are poorly sourced, often poorly written, and are not all that useful (I'm not speaking of all of them, but a goodly number). I can only guess that this reflects the biases of Wikipedians writ large, because they just don't care about that stuff so much. In other article spaces, an unsourced sentence won't be allowed for a second. On ], however, you get sentences like ''"There are some elements to think about when choosing the form of payment. When submitting an offer, the acquiring firm should consider other potential bidders and think strategically."'' as though this were a freaking how-to speech! I want to build out some of those articles with good sources and make them more informative. | ||
Revision as of 21:44, 30 May 2012
I have two longstanding fields of interest: one is cultural theory and criticism, philosophy, and the humanities; the other is Chinese politics, religion, and history. Since becoming a Wikipedian I've also become interested in financial topics. Misplaced Pages is a complex place, especially when it comes to contentious topics where editors have strong opinions and are committed to seeing the Misplaced Pages pages on those topics represent those opinions. I used to be quite sanguine about the encyclopedia, but the issue of persistent POV-pushing is a difficult and complex one to deal with. No suggestions for a solution to that problem, though the thoughts here seem a good start. This is mainly in reference to the Falun Gong family of articles, with which I have been involved.
Misplaced Pages is interesting for another reason, I guess it is a kind of systemic bias though it is not all that serious: it is simply that some types of articles get little attention. For example, the articles on Finance, generally, are poorly sourced, often poorly written, and are not all that useful (I'm not speaking of all of them, but a goodly number). I can only guess that this reflects the biases of Wikipedians writ large, because they just don't care about that stuff so much. In other article spaces, an unsourced sentence won't be allowed for a second. On Mergers and Acquisitions, however, you get sentences like "There are some elements to think about when choosing the form of payment. When submitting an offer, the acquiring firm should consider other potential bidders and think strategically." as though this were a freaking how-to speech! I want to build out some of those articles with good sources and make them more informative.
Important policy pages
- Misplaced Pages:Cheatsheet
- Misplaced Pages:List of guidelines
- Misplaced Pages:List of policies
- Misplaced Pages:Layout
- Misplaced Pages:Citing sources
- Misplaced Pages:Verifiability
- Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view
- Misplaced Pages:No original research
- Misplaced Pages:Notability
- Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources
- Misplaced Pages:Lead section
- Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Essays of interest
- Vine, Richard. "Foucault's gay science," New Criterion, January 1992
Quotes
"A sense of irony is the first victim of utopian dreams." — Theodore Dalrymple
"The fact of the matter is that editors who care about Misplaced Pages lose to editors who desire only to make articles reflect their viewpoints." — user:Hipocrite
Funny diffs
Notes
- Over time I have developed a bizarre grudge against gratuitous hyperlinking. I'll remove the brackets if they lead nowhere.