User talk:Anarchangel

I like improving sourcing on articles, and would do so, but I limit my editing of mainspace articles (working mostly on Articles for Deletion articles and their discussion), in protest against:

1. In some cases unlimited power given to deletionists: Double (infinite) Jeopardy (2nd and subsequent nominations), the endless Letter-number combinations (A7 et al) that bypass AfD altogether, and the ability of editors to bypass even those means by redirecting articles (see section #User:EEMIV, below). Reams of rules, every WP rule but two in fact, to enable deletion of content, which are routinely wrongly interpreted as rules to enable deletion of articles wholesale. Only two rules actually aiding retention of articles. WP:BIO is the only WP rule to actually support inclusion; attainments on its list allow articles to be included. WP:DEL is a sad and sorry second; its quite sufficient list, which would keep the lawyering and endless misinterpretation of rules down to manageable floodwaters instead of an endless tsunami if it were an absolute list, is almost completely knackered for retention by the phrase, "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following". Consequently, DEL ends up being more of a boon to deletionists than inclusionists; but then, perhaps only the latter can fully appreciate how desperate they would have to be to go looking in a rule about deletion, and the only rule about deleting articles, to find some rationale for including articles, in any case. Meanwhile, the deletionists not only have EVERY OTHER RULE, but none of these other rules they are using are specifically about deleting ARTICLES. They are just used that way.
2. WP:PRIMARY. A rule that says that the Supreme Court's record of their proceedings has no more validity than a "man on the street" interview, random memory of a Wikipedia editor, or interview with a disaster survivor who is probably suffering from shock. This rule has been vastly improved by the recent addition of the allowance that PRIMARY sources CAN be used. Or maybe it has been made much worse. You decide. Perhaps a better distinction is what is really required?
3. Cultural imperialism & cultural vampirism. WP sucks up the world and spits out America. More importantly, it sucks up Google and spits that out, too, with everything that does not match the deliberately dry and lifeless style of WP removed. Don't believe me? Take a look at Auld Alliance from Jan 2010, and Auld Alliance now. The first is art, written by an artist, the second is Wikipedia. Why would anyone want to use WP when a Google search gives more options and links to better writing? Blame it on WP:V ; WP is replaceable with an internet search, until it admits that Truthiness is an inevitable hazard, and N and V and consequently, all WP rules, are just another equally dangerous but more insidious form of Truth.
4. The one reason for using WP instead of Google is science articles. Do grants pave the way for paywalls the way Medicare and stupidly rich people pave the way for forehead-slapping pharmaceuticals prices? Either way, the dribble of actual scientists that take the time to contribute to WP are immediately confronted with a barrage of unnecessary difficulties. Right from the start, the SUPERIOR form of citation that scientists use is not used, let alone enabled, on Wikipedia. The slightly inferior form that some scientists use, without hyperlinks, is A REASON FOR DELETION at AfD. I cannot stress that enough. The deletionists who vote at AfD are SO stupid that I have more than once seen them completely ignore a ream of References at the bottom of an article, and nominate and/or vote based on "lack of citations". Current science is always deemed as "OR" or "too soon", despite lists of Google Scholar hits as long as your arm, and your other arm. The Real Thing, good science, albeit untranslated for beginners, is deleted out of articles as "incomprehensible". Brave Attempts are deleted for the same reason, or because of the knee-jerk assumption that because they are stubs, they must not be notable. Trust me, I have seen way too many bad nominations accompanied by bad rationales for deletion to not know that the REAL REASON things are nominated is oftentimes not written down. There cannot possibly be that many people who are that stupid. Stupid and / or immoral, though, makes up the difference more than plausibly.
5. Thin end of the wedge arguments. "No, there is nothing so especially wrong with the article now, but we had better do something now, or later, something bad might happen."AfD: anthropomorphic personifications, just to grab the first one on the shelf Well, we can do something about it later, then, should it actually happen. Over and over, "unmaintainable" or "potential target for POV" are offered as though they were certain predictions of unmanageable disaster, when their predicted consequences are neither certain nor unmanageable.
6. E-Z Mode. "Unmaintainable" and "potential target" arguments are also arguments for not only not doing work, but PREVENTING work. Who the hell died and made these whiners king of Wikipedia, that a red carpet be laid before their every whim? To say nothing of, who asked them to do anything? - don't strain yourself on my behalf. Often, the argument that an article would require work to improve is explicitly given as a reason to delete it, without any trace of irony.
7. Psychic guidance. WP:POVFORK assumes it knows the intentions of creators of WP:SPINOFF articles, for example.
8. The WP bureaucracy could easily be replaced with a coin toss, imo, as so many ANI proceedings either take no action or the wrong action. Saboteurs and, excuse the cliche, but partisan hacks, who make nice once they are caught, get a slap and then are back to do it all again. Good actors who stand up for their rights get permanently blocked.

Enough is enough. Clean up this house or I shall not stay again. I am uncomfortably aware that all that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing, but then, I am not doing nothing. I am doing something elsewhere, where my efforts are not wasted.

Updated Anarchangel (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]