Aine63

NPOV is not obtained by deleting POVs, but by including all the possibilities

Impressions

This user thinks:

• Wikipedia is a wonderful platform for people to write about and discuss ideas that interest them
• Most Wikipedians are very devoted to seeing that the quality of the content here is sound.
• Most Wikipedians try to be constructive with their contributions and feedback
• Most Wikipedians are very cool, interesting people.
• The scope of all of Wiki is amazing
• NPOV is critical, but it often takes multiple contributors at an article to achieve as a single editor might not see all the points of view possible.

This user is appreciative of:

• All the great articles that others have created
• All the constuctive contributions and criticism to articles I've worked on or created.
• Good suggestions for content additions, particularly if the suggester helps by adding the content (hint)
• All the formatting help, as I'm still learning
• Editors whose user pages include complaints of phrases and words that are overused in Wiki articles, or anywhere else for that matter. It always gives me a much needed chuckle.

This user is really sick of:

• Critiques of articles by Wikipedians who haven't really read the articles (this includes critiques of references, and uses there of, that have not been read by the critic).

• Wikipedians with long-winded criticisms on what is lacking in content, the time and energy for which could have been used to contribute the content that is deemed to be lacking.

...and along these lines - Wikipedians who assert that an article is too POV if it does not represent their own personal POV. But rather than add content that represents their POV, they just keep complaining or try to delete what is there.

...also along these lines - Wikipedians who complain about an article not having a "world view" or enough "global scope," or being too "U.S.-centric" and at the same time do not take steps to add the cultural POVs they want included.

Cultural POVs are often contingent on availability of the information to the editors working on an article. In my personal experience, I've had enormous difficulty digging up material on various world views focusing on issues that I write about. I know they are out there, but I can't read Dutch, I can't read Spanish, I can't read Chinese, etc. (Plus, I am disabled, which largely limits me to my own library and what is on the web.) If I find them, and they are in English, I add them, but they are hard to find. Plus, if a topic is new, then this further limits the scope because the issue may not be being discussed much internationally.

If you are not willing to do the work, you don't have a right to complain. As the saying goes, "Any idiot can criticize."

• Wikipedians who jump into the middle of content disagreements and make judgements or take sides without aprising themselves of the entire situation or it's history. (Wiki Admins can be some of the worst at doing this.)

• Wiki bullies who respond to bruised egos by hounding other Wikipedians or their content. Even worse are those who try to get their buddies to help them, creating a mobbing dynamic which I've read on other user pages is an all too common occurrence here. Frankly, a lot of what goes on around here can be equated with workplace bullying.

• Wikipedians who make accusations of "original research" when other editors use multiple sources that discuss the exact same issues but which may do so using different labels for the exact same issues. (One would hope that the editors here would be able to make make the mountainous intellectual leaps beyond what an issue is called or titled, but this is clearly a problem even for Wikipedia administrators.)

Of all of the above in the "sick of" list, this user will be limiting any discussions, particularly if they get heated. I delight in working with people who are constructive, but will not be wasting any more energy on people who prefer to attack rather than contribute, particularly if they deal with bruised egos by hounding the work of other Wikipedians, trying to highlight any tiny flaw that they can in retaliation. Since I contribute to quite a few controversial topics, I seem to run into my fair share of these personalities. But I think they represent a very small group here. I also think they are not worth expending energy on, other than the minimal.

I apologize to Wikipedia if anyone thinks I'm not being civil by raising the above, but these are problems at Wiki, and need to be raised. These comments do not reflect the behavior of particular individuals, but of common problems at Wiki. (If any users should see themselves in these concerns, perhaps it will give them some thought.) Other's have raised the same concerns on their userpages, even administrators.

*************************************************************************************************************************************

With all due respect to Errol Morris, this user thinks Genghis Blues is one of the greatest documentaries ever made. Tuva or bust!

I don't like editing some one elses user page but I can't find your talk page. It is a well and good to raise issue that not no else whats to because of civility but some of your comments ARE crossing the line. I hope you will exersise better jugdement in the future or I will have to inform the admins.

                                 Sencerly Skeletor 0 (talk) 19:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)