CommonKnowledgeCreator
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 2. |
 | CommonKnowledgeCreator is currently feeling discouraged about Wikipedia and is taking an off-and-on wikibreak due to loss of motivation. Your help in cheering this user up would be appreciated. Wikipedia is run by a group of long-term editors who effectively assert ownership over the project by abusing the consensus policy to prevent any change to other policies, guidelines, and norms that are at least in need of reform. Since this effectively requires editors who wish to edit to be subjected to rules that are not functional and that they have no ability to change, there does not appear to be much of a reason to continue to participate in this project. Besides, research on digital divides has shown that greater equality of internet access has not reduced knowledge divides, so continuing to participate in a project to give free access to the sum of all human knowledge must not be a worthwhile use of time (if it ever was). |
== Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ==
Large tags
Please reconsider adding or keeping the 'too large' tags on the many American history, presidency, and American Revolution pages you've just tagged. These pages have gone without complaint for many years, people have kept them at under the 15,000 words suggested peak, and the topics are well-maintained as important articles about America. I'm also finding that you haven't discussed the large intrusive tag on the talk pages of the articles where you've added them. You are asking or inviting all editors, including casual readers, to take a cleaver to these well-written and long-term articles. Please revert these and pick a talk page to discuss them on, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
These pages have gone without complaint for many years, people have kept them at under the 15,000 words suggested peak, and the topics are well-maintained as important articles... You are asking or inviting all editors, including casual readers, to take a cleaver to these well-written and long-term articles.
What WP:SIZERULE actually says for articles with word counts exceeding 15,000 words is that the article "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed", while if the word count exceeds 9,000 words that the article "Probably should be divided or trimmed" and if the world count exceeds 8,000 words that the article "May need to be divided or trimmed". What this appears to me to suggest is that the recommended peak is actually 8,000 words rather than 15,000 words.- Also, given the results of the October 2023 YouGov survey of U.S. adults about Wikipedia, it is hardly clear that readers are not complaining about the article lengths or that casual readers will take a cleaver to the articles. While 83% of survey respondents had visited Wikipedia at least once, only 7% had ever edited Wikipedia and only 31% said Wikipedia was their main source for information or a source that they used often. Considering also that only a minority of active editors contribute to talk page discussions and new editors often only ever make one edit, I think a more reasonable inference may be that readers may very well have complaints about article length and are just not saying so on Wikipedia talk pages.
- Given that WP:SIZERULE is a guideline rather than a policy under WP:POLICIES, I suppose that the tags can be removed from the articles shorter than 15,000 words and where a prior consensus has been reached explicitly through a community process that the guideline can be ignored for a specific article. However, I would argue that the tags should remain otherwise where no such consensus has been reached given the language of the guideline and the tag. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Whether an article is too long cannot be determined solely based on word count. One should also factor in how much it addresses crucial aspects without excess detail. I sometimes have seen people carelessly remove important content for the sole purpose of getting articles under a certain word count or size limit, which is misguided. Sometimes trying to apply specific size/word limits ends up doing more bad than good for a page. Don't blindly tag just because something goes past a certain amount. Take some time to assess the page's actual content first. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- As a heads-up, since this was a WP:BOLD mass-edit made without prior consensus, since WP:SIZERULE is merely a guideline, and since there's clearly a loose consensus against these mass-edits, I'm going through and rolling back all of them. Next time get consensus before making a mass edit to avoid WP:FAIT issues. --Aquillion (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for your well-reasoned response. My main concern was that America is going through its 250th anniversary of individuals and events which shaped the founding of the nation, an area we will hopefully edit within and collab in the next 15 months or so. Probably all of the pages are well watched and maintained. As to your reader facts, even 7% of readers eventually editing amount to hundreds of millions of potential editors over time. Wikipedia gets a lot of views, which is why things like navboxes (which you enjoy creating and working on, a rarer Wikipedian than a literate ring-spotted vandal) are not an add-on but an essential component of original Wikipedia (30% of readers, those who use desktop and laptops, get a navbox). The large majority of readers only read the lead (if that) and so having a long article in one place for these important topics seems the route to go for those who want the full-Jimbo, and if a semi-book-length page can provide that, sources and suggested reading lists and all, Wikipedia does the expected job. Much thanks for your analysis above. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- One of the articles to which you added a tag was the biography of John Adams. This article was promoted to featured article status in 2018 when it was over 1,000 words more than its current length. The article is a little under 15,000 words now, and even an article that is a little over 15,000 words shouldn't automatically be shorted, as policy only states that it "almost certainly" should be, not that it must automatically be reduced without exception. Articles about extremely important persons and events, like John Adams, should be allowed to go on the longer end of the spectrum. I agree with the editors who have commented here: tag bombing articles with well established content and no prior talk page discussion is unhelpful and should be discouraged. Display name 99 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Mass shootings in the United States reverts
Please stop removing the old version, it's getting annoying thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:4C80:7F70:284F:AE18:6111:C807 (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- You have provided no reasons for why it should be reverted to the previous revision. No content from the version you wish for the article to be reverted was removed from the article, but was merged into the Contributing factors section as part of a reorganization of that section's content. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
About the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Hello. I just knew that you reverted my edits on the Senate's prediction and likely to reject the budget cuts via the H.R. 4 (Recession Act of 2025). Thank you. Akhil K. (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Concern
He keeps editing and messing up current information aka common knowledge 2601:183:4C80:7F70:BDF6:5176:B73:AA26 (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- He's still doing it and locked edits, this guy is vandalising everything 2601:183:4C80:7F70:BDF6:5176:B73:AA26 (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Reason
I edited it, because it's removing important factors that's why thank you very much 2601:183:4C80:7F70:BDF6:5176:B73:AA26 (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)