Jump to content

User:Kku

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kku (talk | contribs) at 08:39, 13 October 2017 (→Current stuff). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Coordinates lookup New Reflinks Duplication detector
Catscan Dispenser's Checklinks My cite templates
Range contributions alternate X's tools: automated edits, more My template collection
Range block calculator IPv6 range block T. Paris article blamer Intersect contribs alternate
Autoblock finder Wikichecker user activity Σ's Editor Interact Tool
Page history statistics Buttons and gizmos User Contribution Search
All pages with prefix Special:ComparePages Wiki ViewStats


We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly

Current stuff

AAASThis user has access to AAAS resources through The Wikipedia Library


Proliferation of pop

compare with

Subpages

...possibly TODO...

In this userspace:

User:
Kku

Tools

Overview

Bots

Visualization

(

) (

)

Old longing

Sometimes, just to mention it in passing, sometimes, there was a time when I wished I had admin rights... just like back home in the old times. As I now failed to make it through a second round, mostly on the grounds that I was contributing "too little":

It's not the number of edits, I think, that counts. (...long, hollow echoing, faint sound of lukewarm wind from nowhere...)

You can consequently do the ugly cleansing yourself, after all. Have fun, admins and beaurocrats of the world.

...updated

"Undo" does most of what I longed for. I still positively hate to see pages go without the slightest chance for the humble non-admin to resurrect any of the deleted contents, though.

See also: Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles

My Wikisophy

Why WP keeps me fascinated and excited? Because it allows you to (learn how to) learn through teaching. I cannot think of a better way to structure my own thoughts than by writing them down and hyperlinking them. Usually, my understanding of a topic becomes rounded off only after going through a few cycles of reading, writing, linking - even if my starting information happens to be incomplete or faulty! Can there be a more satisfying moment than realizing that the relevant bits and pieces have fallen into place and you can see a lemma in its full context? For me, Wikipedia really is, not least, one gigantic mindmap (side remark: when will we see the "visual wiki" [2]?). I guess I would be hard pressed to name all the insights that WP has provided me with but they certainly amount to the number of my original contributions (whatever you might think about those). WP distinguishing feature - above all other knowledge repositories I know of - is its network structure. Simply no concept is left in murky solitude. And traditional paper browsing is replaced by one simple mouse click. What the WWW did for making information cross (political, geographical,...) boundaries, WP does for knowledge. -- Kku 12:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Wikid stuff. Pardon my wikicism. :-D

Blots on the landscape

A striking effect of the WP-philosophy "be bold" is remarkably the dilution of knowledge. Aspects of lemmata get scattered all across several articles and the essential keywords and definitions get hidden underneath lots of (correct but) redundant, sometimes annoyingly wordy contributions. There is no obvious justification for the plethora of distracting info-bits that dilute many articles apart from the fact that people obviously like writing better than tidying up behind them. On the other extreme rarely anybody seems to care about cleaning up lots of redundant stubs that usually owe their existence to a sloppy "one-click" attitude. I admit nourishing a strong feeling of dislike towards this aspect of WP. That was one of my motivations for the following suggestion:

Let's cool down wp a bit

... using simulated annealing. Quite a while ago, I suggested that the cooling process could be initiated by slowly raising the minimum amount of reference information for matured articles with software aids like combo-boxes for reference type, etc. on top or instead of the underused comment line. (http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/25805) That should cool down at least vandals or scatterbrains... ;). Opinions?

Male cow's excrements

WP appears to be infested with marketing and management zombies. One of the better (or rather: worst) examples of their murky subversion would be an article like this. Too ugly for words. And certainly not encyclopedic.

I don't care much for bingo in any form. Truly horrific inspirations for the latter might be found in almost anything containing this

See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, Category:All_articles_with_a_promotional_tone, Data_management § Usage, Category:Marketing_stubs, Category:Articles needing cleanup, Wikipedia:Spam, Wikipedia:Please_clarify, and Wikipedia:It_should_be_noted

Fictional worlds

Regarding the extraordinary number of fandom -related content, these have proven to be enormously useful: {{Overly detailed|date=March 2014}} {{Multiple issues|original research =March 2014|fansite=March 2014|examplefarm=March 2014}}

Sturgeon's law notwithstanding.

In general

This is good: http://www.trinitonian.com/2014/01/24/learn-your-crap-detection-skills-now/

UsabiliWHAT?

Insightful. At least if you lean back and squint a little. http://daggle.com/closed-unfriendly-world-wikipedia-2853

Contribs

my anonymous contributions

  1. ^ https://blog.wikimedia.org/2016/01/15/15-years-data-visualization/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Kku&oldid=805135480"