User:Leflyman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Script error: No such module "Message box".

Template:User otherScript error: No such module "Message box".


A no-longer so short page about Wikipedian Leflyman


Aloha. I've been registered since January 2004, although I made a number of anonymous edits going back to months earlier. Three-and-a-half years is probably long enough.

My motivation for editing has been sapped of late by the increasing activities of fanatical individuals, who are doggedly determined to insert their particular point-of-view into articles. Among the great faults of Wikipedia is its open-arm acceptance of those who are primarily self-interested in promoting their personal ideology, philosophy, resentment or prejudice. There are a limited number of those who write clearly, edit well and know how to differentiate between biased and neutral language -- while there are unlimited hoards of off-kilter bad writers, with apparently boundless time and enthusiasm to wear down even the most resolute of editors. Just as rational discussions are fruitless with unreasonable participants, the entropic effect of poor edits can not be fended off indefinitely. I would argue that for many articles, time and additional eyes has not improved their quality; and in many cases, the more recent are no better-- or even worse-- than those of past.

Take for example, one of the first articles I edited, Robot. Here is how the lede sentences stood on May 4, 2005: Template:Quote

A year later, on May 14, 2006, it read: Template:Quote

Today, with another year of edits, it starts with: Template:Quote

Which of those is better? The latest version of the article has some virtues, but for the most part, its writing is inferior to the incarnation of two years ago. Like a chili recipe that becomes unpalatable as countless cooks keep adding ingredients to their own preferences, Wikipedia is doomed to a constant struggle of tastes -- and mischief.

As for myself, I've grown weary of trying to "fix" the various problems, unintentional or not, which seem to be growing, lockstep with the expansion of Wikipedia content.

So for now; I'm off.

Wiki-philosophy

What I believe...

I believe the task of a general encyclopedia is to be useful to the widest range of people, not merely technical specialists or detail-oriented fans. While I previously described myself as a subscriber to the Wikipedia philosophy of "Deletionism", I would term myself an adherent to "Significantism"-- which I consider to be a more accurate reflection of "notability", and a preferable term to "importance". My belief is that articles should demonstrate the significance of their subject matter. In regards to articles and additions of extremely limited significance, only by weeding can Wikipedia flourish into a true garden of knowledge (to extend a clichéd metaphor.) That's not to say that obscure topics do not deserve a place here, so long as their contents are neutral, verifiable and free of original research.

Major contributions

I've contributed to a wide range of articles-- from science and religion, to culture, history and entertainment-- although I prefer to keep watch over a few specific ones of interest, to ensure their quality remains stable, and to reverse Wiki-entropy. In particular, I have been a long-time editor of the constellation of Lost (TV series) articles, including (re)writing nearly every section of the main article, as well as many of the ancillary pages. I walked it through two peer reviews, and was responsible for seeing Lost receive Today's Featured Article for October 3.

Some other pages I've had a major hand in developing/revising (but didn't start):

Articles initiated

And some of the random articles I started, mostly dealing with entertainment or music:

Ongoing updates

User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report