User talk:Faedra
Wikipedia the free lunch.
How often in life do you get anything for nothing is the question raised in this item.
Seldom, must be the answer, unless you are very fortunate or have some legal claim. A good example of the something for nothing culture has evolved into the Wikipedia free encyclopaedia.
Yes, it has been stated that any individual surfing the net, may freely copy a wikipedia article, but you can copy just about anything from the WWW, and once it has been de compiled and re associated with other material, it is difficult to really claim any previous copyright to have been violated.
I have copied many pages from Wikipedia, read them, and asked myself what have I gained, very little in fact, given the public access to original material available to any interested party in the modern world. Further as a contributor for several months having provided over 100 original pages, I find I have gained even less. A considerable amount of effort has to be put into into compiling an objective, accurate and useful article for any encyclopaedia, and the satisfaction from such effort does not come from seeing it at Wikipedia, or even on the web, but in fact from the effort stated.
Wikipedia has such a weak grip on its own content, having chosen to assimilate its content under the form of the GNU, that its material is redistributed by numerous other agents, many of whom seem to be providing a useful service to the educational establishment, the instrument of its downfall seems most likely in that it states itself to be a community. As such it is flawed, and heading for problems. Many authors initially happy to contribute to Wikipedia, have indicated that feel the 'community' a bunch of arrogant pirates, and full of their own self importance, (it is widely recognised how this behaviour is self defeating). This however is not the problem with the legality of the GNU, in the context of Wikipedia.
Whilst a statement exists on all pages that any contribution is licenced under the GNU, no method of obtaining a verification of this proposition is presented to the beginner. Whilst a simple javascript could be employed, it can not be back dated. I will, if compelled therefore challenge the Wikipedia GNU and present my 'wikified' texts to an independent publisher, with the intention of exposing this absurd proposition, a form of free licensing aimed at escaping responsibility, and duty of care for intellectual property.
I am not easily upset by genuine critism, but will not tollerate arrogance. Thousands of websites are available for those inclined to upload material of any sort, the math does not add up, when it is considered objectively, Wikipedia is rotten from the inside, and this is only noticeable after some experience with its methods of utilising the good will of its users. It remains potentially a valued resource for education, but is criticised for exploiting its members, beyond reasonable cause. If it is ever to evolve into a useful institution major reforms are required.
My first interest in the website manifest when I discovered that it was possible to make direct edits to existing pages, and encouraged by the advise, and warnings about responsibility whilst so doing I begun to take an active part in the program. However I soon noticed how very few people actually have anything of merit to contribute, and how most changes are simple at best, or just useful corrections made at random, by readers, in passing.
Whilst I am content to allow my contributions to be edited beyond recognition I have noticed that the main preoccupation of many 'Wikipedians' seems to be in spending time criticising work submitted, without taking the appropriate amount of time to make any alterations they might deem required, and this I find a mark of gross ignorance. I can find fault in just about anything if I wish to be negative, but this freedom does not give me the right to assume I am correct.
I am not so preoccupied that I fail to notice failings around this website, and wish them to be addressed. I am not bothered if my contributions are unwelcomed but would appreciate it if someone would tell me so. I thought perhaps some one might appreciate my imput, but it is not compulsion.
I concede readily however that many Wikipedians are exceptional people with rare talents and congratulate them for their efforts.
The kind of opinion that indicates arrogance and self importance, to be avioded in a public forum:
An implacable command states that you the user must obey at all times all the guidelines and agreed conventions that other people have gone to the trouble to create.
Of related interest:
Lord Warden
No problem. It's always nice to see people with an interest in British history here. Proteus (Talk) 08:49, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Deleted pages
Hi. The page Early National Socialism/draft was deleted several months ago by a consensus vote. You "reconstructed" this deleted page and put it back on wikipedia as European National Socialism. Please do not resurrect pages that have been deleted without first conducting a vote to "undelete" the article. Please see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Early_National_Socialism/draft for the earlier debate on why that page was inappropriate for wikipedia. AndyL 16:51, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I have also contributed alot to this site but what unnerves me is the constant editing and the slanting of articles that approximate censorship. A particular fellow runs after me editing and censoring a certain author I use. He is deleting all reference to him. I do a lot of research only to find that it is clearly deleted and thrown over. It doesn't make for an enjoyable time. It is sometimes worthless to try. I feel your pain on your other points as well.WHEELER 17:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In many ways I do agree with you. I often smile when I consider the votes for deletion, which many take awfully seriously, forgetting, it seems, that just anyone can sign up and have a vote! It's quite arbitrary who bothers. You are also very right that there is relatively little construction to match the deconstruction, because so much effort is put into little things. However, perhaps you should take into account that the contributors are very keen and the process rather addictive and perhaps this is the best outlet they could find for their urge to get involved. I noted your frustration with the rules lawyers that have a grip on the place. You just have to shrug that off. There are always going to be people who rather than try to convince you they are right will appeal to "the guidelines", forgetting the spirit that they are intended to represent and making out they are inscribed in stone. But that is not everyone here. I'm sure there are many who will engage in constructive debate. I hope you will not be discouraged and will continue to contribute.Dr Zen 07:24, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)