User talk:Kmweber/What Wikipedia Is

A Public Disputation

After taking several months off, I come back to find that this essay has been nominated on MfD. Clearly, the nomination is groundless and the current course of the MfD reflects that, so I see no point in weighing in there myself. But while my stances as to what changes need to be made to Wikipedia, and to what constitutes legitimate governance, have not changed, after being away for several months to let the frustrations die down I'm willing to take a more cooperative approach. So I'd like to take this opportunity to hold an open, public discussion as to the validity of my ideas.

I certainly get that what I am suggesting here is radically different from how Wikipedia has been operating—that's the whole point. There would be no need for me to write this essay if Wikipedia was already operating in this manner, because there'd be no need for change. But I find the argument, as some people seem to think, that my ideas are inherently incorrect precisely because they're at odds with how Wikipedia works, to be simply illogical, for one simple reason: the way Wikipedia works is not immutable. Things can be changed. If we're only supposed to talk about how things currently work, Wikipedia will never get better. Dismissing proposals for change with "that's not how we do things around here, so not only are you wrong, but you can't even talk about that here" misses the whole point.

I invite any and all to make collegial, substantial arguments as to what, exactly, is flawed about the understanding of how Wikipedia should operate presented in this essay. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 16:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Never mind, I withdrew the MFD both per consensus and realization that my nomination was off base. I was concerned that someone might take it wrongly, I guess the fact that it's clearly marked as a user essay shows that it's your opinions. I'm glad to see you being much more civil about the whole thing, too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you, though that does not obviate the need to continue to discuss the ideas presented here. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 16:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I see where you're coming from with this essay, and I think you have a point. I just don't agree with it and still hold to WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I generally agree with TenPoundHammer, but let me elaborate on why: Wikipedia isn't just a wiki, but also an encyclopedia. When someone reads an encyclopedia, they don't expect things someone made up. Notability is an objective way to establish whether an article is "made up". But beyond that, if something is nonnotable, it is very unlikely that reliable sources will exist for the subject. If something cannot be verified, we cannot include it because it could potentially be false or original. Wikipedia is not just intended to generate content, but to vet it as well. --NYKevin @196, i.e. 03:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)