I have spent zero time up till now developing this page, but maybe I should.
About me
editI tend to edit in spurts. I began in 2009, when I created my first article, and fell right away into a dispute with another editor who was owning an article full of conspiracy theories and blame on living persons. And guess what! Mediation worked! I am very proud of the content of that article today, though the dispute resolution was dragged out and a major stress, it served as a great mechanism for me to learn rather quickly how to work within Wikipedia. (Sometimes I learn things the hard way :/ ) I didn't edit much at all over the next few years, just a little here and there, but in 2014 I came back for another intense period of editing. It was then that I created my second article (a previous version of which had been created and deleted due to notability problems - see my rant below) and contributed substantially to several others. I am also very proud of my role in helping to resolve a deep and old dispute that had gotten so bad that the article was in AfD, despite it being a subject of real importance in political science. I requested mediation again, but I am delighted to say the mediator closed the request because in the interim we had settled on our own framework for a major re-write of the article, and it has been stable ever since. Recently I learned about the UK's Open Government License (OGL), and I found out that meant we can have all kinds of free images in government reports and papers. So I added a bunch of stuff to another article, expanding it with lots of content and some awesome photos and one diagram. That's the kind of stuff I like doing here. Then with all this OGL material available, I decided to take a risk and create my 3rd article. This one I kept in my sandbox until it was ready (i.e., AfD-resistant). Putting work into creating articles always feels like a real risk, but I think this one's in good shape now.
Oh yeah. I just got a new keyboard for my computer, and it's junk! it msses lettrsand spaces, and the remaining fragments are often words that don't show up on my spell checker. So... I might leave typos wherever I go. I try to clean them up, and I think I do a good job, but I appreciate the help if you see them in article space. (Believe it or not, I cannot afford another keyboard.)
Crowd disasters
editI have developed a special interest in crowd disasters as a result of the horrible tragedy during the 2015 Hajj pilgrimage in September, 2015. The word stampede is routinely used to describe such events, though they usually involve very little movement at all. People usually stand still and get crushed (see Hillsborough disaster) or they fall on top of each other and get crushed (see Phnom Penh stampede).
Notice that the first article, about an event in Sheffield, England, refers to a disaster, and that the second article, about an event in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, refers to a stampede. This is extremely common in the English Wikipedia. The single most predictive factor in whether we use the word stampede in our article titles and section headings is race, white or non-white.
I analyzed this biased usage of the word stampede thoroughly using rigorous methods, though it has been a long time since I have actually done such a statistical analysis, and I welcome any input on my methods. I still have the database in SPSS, and running additional tests would be very easy. My report can be found here. PLEASE offer criticism of the methodology on the talk page of that report. It is written with the appearance of a scientific article, but I tried to make it more readable. There are no references to outside work because this was meant as an internal assessment od what we do in Wikipedia. (Perhaps methodological and external trends might be useful to reference though.)
Although a recent RfC did not reach consensus concerning a change in how we use the word (RS usage still means something, and that opinion was stronger than the opinion to amend policy on usage of the word), no one argued against the facts of this trend, and the closer stated:
However, the discussion does not lead to any prescriptive conclusions about what editors should do when there are multiple sources that use different language. I expect that this will very often be the case: disasters are human-interest stories that will have several sources and each will use its own choice of words. This discussion does not prevent editors from using article talk pages to try to build consensus to change the word "stampede" in cases where there is a reliably-sourced alternative.
I would like to urge Wikipedians to be thoughtful when writing about such events. Consider whether a stampede has actually occurred, or whether is was a crush, a collapse, crowd turbulence, or some other kind of crowd disaster with a less loaded term, even disaster or tragedy, as long as the event has already been defined. I think it's in everybody's best interest that we minimize our use of the word stampede unless the event clearly was an actual [stampede]. When discussing an event's name, we have to go with our sources, as long as a WP:COMMONNAME has been established in our sources. Even in such cases, please consider what WP:COMMONNAME says; "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." (Emphasis added.) Remember too that WP:COMMONNAME covers only the name of the event. When describing what happened within the article, we need to use correct English.
My philosophy about Wikipedia
editI will never win any awards for creating huge numbers of articles or for bringing articles to GA or FA status. My favorite thing to do is research and adding content. Besides, I don't like the message we send when we congratulate each other for bringing something to GA or FA status. By giving credit to one editor, that suggests we are not working as a team, including contributions from uninvited editors. We will never create a highly polished, consistently edited encyclopedia unless only a few people do all the work, and I think that model works against our mission of openness and inclusiveness. I think it also encourages individual ownership of articles, which I see as a pervasive and dangerous problem here. I think our encyclopedia should look a little rough, but without compromising on content. Rough edges demonstrate that this really is an open, free, and inclusive project. I think we need to re-think the value we assign to well-polished articles that no one can touch (de facto if not by policy). We stop developing and consider the job finished.
I'm ok with erring on the side of too much information and not deleting articles, especially because notability has not been sourced yet. When I have been involved in AfD discussions, the clear majority of articles that were nominated for lack of notability just needed a little TLC and a simple Google search. The subjects were usually notable, but the article creator hadn't documented it and was often not around to discuss the matter. Maybe the creator did their bit by creating the article, and someone else could do their bit by doing the documentation? These are our articles, even the stubs and starters, and every one in AfD. All ours. WE need to own them as a team and fix them according to WP:BEFORE if we can. Deletion should be a last resort, not the first reaction to an article that is really a stub of a notable subject. I disagree that it is the creator's responsibility to document notability. It is OUR responsibility. WE own the article, not any individual.
I know these are minority viewpoints, but I think they need to be considered when making such decisions. (Remember, majorities gave us witch hunts, Adolf Hitler, and the Macarena.) I think anyone who has disagreed with me in an AfD or RfC, or any other similar process knows that I argue my case vociferously (and often at length - I try to be concise! I'm brevity-challenged), but I also accept the close and move on, content that my opinions were heard and considered. Our closers really do great work here, and they are so thoughtful!
Barnstars!
editHooray! I am very proud of my Barnstars! Ok, I only have three of them, but they are an awesome pat on the back from regular people! :)
The Bright Idea Barnstar
edit
Hi Dcs002, let me be the first to post a message on your Talk page, and allow me to award you the Bright Idea Barnstar for your clever idea regarding using a .gif file to show two different views of the Beyond cover art. Thankyou, also, for your support at the FfD, including the text linking our thoughts on the subject to the relevant criteria. I have made a temporary arrangement with a simple drawing to take the place of the deleted image, which you can see here. Thanks, once again. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 05:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
The Socratic Barnstar
edit
|
The Socratic Barnstar | |
| For leading the fight to remove "stampede" from article titles at Talk:2015 Mina stampede and WT:W2W, your arguments were impressive. Sheriff (report) 16:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC) |
Seconded! --Stratfordjohns (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar
edit
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| For a brilliant article on the 2005 Loganair Islander accident Moksh Juneja (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC) |
Photography
editI've taken some nifty pictures with my new camera. Here are a few I've uploaded to Wikimedia Commons:
