|
Welcome to the Wikipedia user page of FT2.
Enjoy exploring :)
|
| Planned absences - none.
|
- November: Unknown
- December: (none yet)
|
| Contact details.
|
|
|
Contact details:
|
|
|
|
|
On other Wikimedia projects
|
|
|
|
| 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.)
Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, and a good map must have enough detail, but not too much as to be unwieldy and unhelpful in navigating ones way.
- -- [1]
|
| What's expected of editors?
|
- No personal attacks - do not disparage, insult, or attack others in any form.
- Be civil - even if not an attack, talk nicely, respectfully. Being nice does not contradict being effective (if they cause a problem)
- Assume good faith - ask if there seems to be a problem, don't assume.
- Seek dispute resolution -- if you can't reason with them, and their actions need intervention, don't do it all yourself. Stay calm, and allow time for dispute resolution. It's a lot easier for others to sort out one person acting up than two.
- Don't be a fanatic - extremes help nobody. This is a collaborative project, it is never wrong to ask another uninvolved person to handle it, or check it, or tell you what they think. It's by far the most trouble-free option.
- Ask an admin rather than get into trouble yourself - they're there to help. Any experienced user can act like an administrator though, so again, ask anyone who sounds like they are able to help.
- Make mistakes gracefully - we all do. When it happens to you, learn from it, understand it, and let it go. The reasons people have trouble is they can't learn, or can't let go.
|
| Writing for Wikipedia
|
| 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.
|
| And last...
|
- There are thousands of people having fun editing!
And their message to you is --
Have fun! :)
Catch you on the Wiki!
If you need anything, just shout!
FT2
|
|
.svg){kind=small}