This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FT2 (talk | contribs) at 22:37, 12 March 2011 (update). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:37, 12 March 2011 by FT2 (talk | contribs) (update)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Welcome to the Misplaced Pages user page of FT2.Enjoy exploring :)
project contributions
barnstars and accolades
(all potentially out of date!)
| Planned absences - yes. next: unknown - |
|---|
|
| Contact details. | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
.svg){kind=small}
| What is NPOV? |
|---|
| (Posted at Wikipedia_talk:Neutrality Project, responding to a question, what NPOV is and whether one should always present an opposing view.)
Misplaced Pages articles are not required to invent or embellish an opposing point of view if there isn't one. We are reporting upon a subject, whatever the article topic may be. Within that, some facts (or their interpretations) will be contested, others will be mostly accepted, others again will be almost universally accepted. We are obligated to ensure that when the article is complete, it mirrors and characterises, without re-enacting, the subject to which it refers. The presence of opposing views in the article is purely a function of whether there were significant opposing views in the subject itself. The acid test if NPOV is achieved, is the map-territory relation -- the extent to which the article can be used as a "map" to guide a lay-person through the "territory" of the subject, including its relevant detours, conflicts and highways. Like a map, no article perfectly mirrors a subject, nor is this expected; if it did it would have to re-enact and be as large as the subject itself. There is a "cutoff" of detail, called "notability" (or sometimes, "salience") in Misplaced Pages, and a good map must have enough detail, but not too much as to be unwieldy and unhelpful in navigating ones way. |
| What's expected of editors? |
|---|
|
| Writing for Misplaced Pages |
|---|
| Writing for an encyclopedia is not the same as writing for a newspaper, or even an academic paper. In a way, it's more like writing the bibliography for an academic paper. In a way, we aren't even trying to decide (as experts would) what is "true" and what isn't, because that's not what this is. We are summarizing a field, creating a balanced collation of multiple perspectives and views. Theres few decisions to make, few opinions to form, other than to observe which views seem to be more or less relevant views of note, and to understand each (and its sources) well enough to document.
We care that we document each view carefully and with understanding. That is the "truth" we work to here. That, and that alone. Our truth is the truth of the bibliography, and the measure is, have we represented collectively in summary the multiple verifiable sources of note. Drawing editorial conclusions from all of them is the end-use of an encyclopedia, not the work of encyclopedists. |
| About Arbcom | ||
|---|---|---|
|
|
| And last... |
|---|
|
Misplaced Pages and me
Quick guide
| ||||||||||
|
I started editing in 2004, became an administrator a while later, then appointed to the Arbitration Committee in December 2007.
As a CheckUser and Oversighter I've dealt with a large number of fairly nasty sock-users, taken more than my share of abusive admins to Arbcom, and stood up for a level field for all; we're here to write a reference work, which means that's the focus of this community - not gaming, not disruption, not advocacy for the cause of the day, not distraction with drama and politicking. Content writing, and decisions about how to operate as a content writing community.
I lean towards "community ownership" advocacy where workable. At a time when most Arbcom process was shrouded in secrecy, I pushed for communal input in the Checkuser/Oversight appointment process (took 6 months to get it), provided the first on-wiki analysis of what Checkusers actually did, the first analysis of how the new RevisionDelete tool was being used by Oversighters, argued for unbundling "ViewDeleted" so that trustworthy non-admins could view deleted revisions and participate more in some processes, argued for a community based ban appeals committee so that there was an appeal route on Arbcom bans that wasn't back to Arbcom, and a load of others. At Arbcom itself I fought hard for better process, a formal structure for proposals to be examined and voted on, and better collaboration/workflow.
I also had a share of controversies (it's literally impossible to be on Arbcom without them even at the best of times, there are some users who really don't like Arbs, or don't want their problematic actions impeded.) And two major problems - clearing them up would have breached privacy, or caused the same drama and project harm just pointed elsewhere. Perhaps I could have found a way to handle these better. I'll never know, they're long ago now in any event. They won't repeat and that's the main thing.
As of October 2009, I stepped down as a Checkuser, Oversighter, Oversight list admin, and sysop (later reacquired). I remain a Functionaries list admin. I'm still round, just active in other roles. In mid 2010 I was asked to spend time contributing to various projects at the Foundation's offices, and in 2011 I was invited onto the WMF Communications Committee.
My Misplaced Pages work remains much as it has always been:
- Writing content - I've written or substantively written around a hundred articles at this time, and made significant improvements to many more. My interests are wide - on the science side cosmology and clinical sciences; on the social side history and law; and add in a bunch of technology, current interest, BLPs, religion and psychology, and a bunch of fringe subjects. I was on a GA binge for a while earlier this year.
- Fixing messes and problems that get in the way of editors - anyone need help with a difficult article wording or AFD decision, tricky NPOV or content issue, 2nd opinion, admin problem, third party email, or sensitive problem?
- Improving editorial processes and guidance - policy wordings, manuals, process updates, all the things that can help and hinder us in improving the project. I was involved in preparing to roll out RevisionDelete and on the wikimedia quality taskforce a while. If I improve one process, a thousand editors benefit from it; improve one policy and a thousand editors have better understanding, streamline a poor wording and users will save time, stress and frustration in future. It's not a trivial area to work in.
I also have a "real" life, and balancing the two's important. But I'm free to choose my work hours. It helps :)
I'll update this at some point. Right now the old version's just a little out of date.
Categories:- Misplaced Pages administrators
- Members of the Ten Year Society of Misplaced Pages editors
- Misplaced Pages Volunteer Response Team members
- WikiProject Misplaced Pages participants
- Misplaced Pages administrators willing to make difficult blocks
- Wikipedians who use VoA script
- Misplaced Pages administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests
- Third opinion Wikipedians