 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Inspired by Antandrus's observation page, this particular list never really took off (as of this August 2012 update). Nevertheless, I'm keeping it here as an archive of sorts, just to revisit it if I feel like it (or if anyone else is interested):
- In the more bureaucratic areas of Wikipedia (like WP:RFA or WP:ANI), editors have a bit of a tendency to over-analyze what other people say/do.
- When you see an announcement on an admin noticeboard about an editor being blocked for incivility, 9 times out of 10 you can expect major drama to erupt.
- According to some of the more vocal members of the Wikipedia community, every process on the site is broken. Instead of focusing on the Wikipedia bureaucracy and getting dragged into the community dissent, go edit an article or help out somewhere else. You'll find that most of our top article writers (not all but most) never complain about broken systems because they don't spend so much time worrying about them.
- Wikipedia is ever-evolving; it is only natural that its processes change along with it, for better or worse.
- Not surprisingly, those who enter a dispute with the belief that they are in possession of better judgment than other editors usually end up being part of the problem, while those who simply wanted to offer their humble opinion tend to be the ones with clue.
- At RfA talk, you can always expect to find a very interesting discussion about something that is completely arbitrary to the RfA process.
- QED: Just because something verifiably exists doesn't necessarily make it notable enough for inclusion.
- Like American politics, on Wikipedia the loudest voice of an argument will also be the most influential towards the end result.
- Readers must realize that, while Wikipedia is a good source of information for significant/popular topics, it is not always the most comprehensive. This can be partially attributed to the fact that the articles are written by many different editors with varying expertise on their given subject of interest. Consequentially, there are varying writing styles and ideosyncratic methods of writing that often come together in what is occasionally a complicated blend of information that oftentimes goes into too much depth. Basically, if you have a choice between your textbook and Wikipedia, your textbook would be a more ideal source to study from. ;)
- The policy pertaining to biographies has long represented a fundamental conflict between process and principle. Few people disagree on the importance of safeguarding the security of the individual; the real dispute has always been over the method in which it is to be applied, and the extent in which Wikipedian process must be compromised for the most accurate and neutral assessment of a living person in a biographical article (or related content). Much as there will always be vandalism, there will always be content on Wikipedia that does not fully satisfy the BLP guidelines (whether sourced or not). Perfection should be strived for, despite being unattainable. The focus should be toward improving the efficiency of remedial actions. Efforts must continue to be made towards blurring the distinction between the aforementioned processes and principles.
- Being "honest" is no excuse for being an asshole. There are always more effective ways of making a point than resorting to personal attacks. It is possible to be blunt without being brutal.