 | Essays Low‑impact  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
For now I neither agree nor disagree with anything stated here. The essay is too ambiguous for me to draw a conclusion. A couple of examples, stating what was done and what should have been done, would do wonders to concretize the problem. YechielMan 08:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think the examples are everywhere, if you know how to look for them. And yes, each problem with Wikipedia the essay discusses should mention specific examples. But do you agree that having a place to discuss such problems with Wikipedia is a good idea? --Kaypoh 08:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- I know of one example, and it's recent WP:SPOILER controversy. Many spoiler warnings were removed at large, while it was not yet obvious that consensus about this exists (even before this was mentioned in Signpost), and practical POV was not considered (ie. if users, not editors, really want spoiler warnings or not). Samohyl Jan 06:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Engagement of academics edit
As everyone knows, there has been a great deal of external comment about WP's relative lack of input from academic writers. I am one of the academics who does contribute regularly to WP and would be interested to join in a small working group or discussion specifically around this question. For info, I scarcely ever edit articles directly related to my field of research interest. WP is my opportunity to explore much more widely. Others may have quite a different approach. It is something that won't go away and is worth chewing over at sufficient length. Itsmejudith 15:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Many have said that Wikipedia is anti-elitist. Yes, we should start a discussion on that. When I suggested a reform page, I thought it would be a discussion area. But it was created as an essay by someone else. --Kaypoh 15:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Volunteer support edit
After the failure of the proposed policy on Engaging with suicidal individuals, I would like to propose a thorough examination of how the project copes with its role as one of the world's largest volunteer organizations. Do we disproportionately attract as editors people who are vulnerable? People with insomnia, lonely people, people with addictive personalities? If this is the case then we should ask if we aren't inadvertently contributing to a range of social problems. Other large voluntary organizations support their volunteers in a range of ways and I think we should consider doing the same. Itsmejudith 15:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think there used to be a Wikipedia program or something called Esperanza that tried to do that, but it was deleted. --Kaypoh 15:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
What makes you think that any of these concerns you list on the page can be meaningfully addressed? What alternatives are you offering? Certainly these are problems (though hardly new), but the seem mostly to be the basic problems that any organization suffers from, not anything that can be solved. 66.81.16.98 (really, User:JesseW/not logged in) 00:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- I dispute your pessimism; we haven't "solved" vandalism, either, and we probably never will. But we work at it. Nifboy 01:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Last I checked, we had solved obvious vandalism as a serious problem. It takes considerable, constant work, but an unsolved problem it's not. These don't seem like that kind of problem; these seem like general downsides to any organization. 66.81.16.75 (really, User:JesseW/not logged in) 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Suggestions edit
If this page is about reforms, then what about embedding videos (I mean videos of high quality and scientific value: e.g. VideoJug)? What about the live and the working versions of an article? What about the promised improvements? NCurse work 17:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- You can start a suggestion to discuss that. --Kaypoh 23:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)