Sosialpath
Joined 13 September 2017
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Quek157 in topic Welcome!
| This is Sosialpath's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Conversation With has been accepted edit
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Galobtter (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Hello edit
Hello Sosialpath. You are obviously a capable writer; I hope your experience with the Channel NewsAsia page doesn't sour you on contributing to Wikipedia. Writing for Wikipedia can be a strange experience, because you are often collaborating with people that you don't know and who have varying skills, experience and opinions. Many are very protective of the encyclopedia's standards and policies, and after years of defending them some express their exasperation rather bluntly, but they do important work in improving articles.
Collaborative writing can be tricky; instead of writing large sections of text at once, it's often more efficient in the long run to make a few small improvements to an article at first and then get feedback (for example, at the Teahouse) to see how your changes are accepted.—Anne Delong (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Anne Delong,
- Thank you for reaching out. I do know how difficult editing can be and so appreciate the gate-keeping, which I'm sure it's a greater challenge here and said as much on the CNA talk page. I appreciate too that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and I'm pleased that it's come a long way, and is now reaching its potential, thanks to dedicated editors, admins like yourself, and "white blood cells" like The Banner who help guard its standards.
- Your note and pointers are greatly encouraging, and I was eager to receive such guidance when I started out. I put in a month's worth of research and writing (offline) into my contribution to the CNA page but did not expect a pat on the back, because I know that I have much to learn about writing for Wikipedia and would never blindly defend contributions I've made, thanks to years of having my words completely rewritten by mentors before I had to do the same for others. The message I received is that I'm not much good at that, even if the bulk of what I added hasn't been summarily deleted, but I'm aware that it's just the opinion of one person who judged me to be the enemy very early on and therefore unworthy of even a civil response to my attempts to reach out.
- Before I go on for too long, I'd like to add that the CNA page and others on Singapore media — judging from Quek157's comment, this may be the case with all Singapore pages — seem to be in malaise after prolonged edit wars and sock puppetry attempts, on top of the divisive nature of the subject given that the media in Singapore is tightly controlled and many citizens eye mainstream media outlets with distrust or even hate, never mind that the majority of journalists in those newsrooms are themselves unhappy with the restrictions placed on them. Flags resulting from the latter have heightened scrutiny, and rightly so, but there's also heightened aggression from "white blood cell" defenders, some of whom may simply be spoiling for a fight and looking to turn any contributor who is less than perfect into a convenient punching bag.
- Apologies for laying all that on you, and I'd like to thank you again for your note. It may not sound like it after the last two paras, but your words have been a great encouragement to not give up yet. Sosialpath (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- I suspected from your responses at the CNA page that your text there had taken a lot of time to put together. It's true, since anyone in the world can edit Wikipedia, that there are some editors who aren't easy to work with and may have an axe to grind; however, since most contributors are serious about wanting to improve the encyclopedia, attracting more editors to a page, providing independently written references, and basing your discussions on policy are the ways to get through those problems. For articles about news outlets, you can ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism. However, no one will put their time into an article about a topic for which independently written information isn't available in books, magazines, news sources, etc., for reasons which you have discovered. Before working on a new or poorly developed article, I look for these sources first, and if I can't find them, I tag the article and let someone else who might have a better idea where to look work on it.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Noted on your point that no one will waste time on an article in the absence of independent information, which was Quek157's counsel. He did also point out that it's a challenge given the lack of independent sources in Singapore, and I'll seek further help on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism before attempting to improve other sg media articles or update them — for instance, the Today (Singapore newspaper) stopped printing nine months ago to go fully digital, but this isn't reflected in the article here. My thanks again for your time.—Sosialpath (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Welcome! edit
|
- Hi Quek157, thanks for the note and the helpful links :) Sosialpath (talk) 08:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)