User:BigHaz/Philosophy

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This might sound self-evident, but it's the point from which everything else I do proceeds.

Encyclopedic standards

As an admin, I'm frequently asked about why I deleted X page. The simple reason is this: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, it has particular standards governing content. The page I deleted did not live up to those standards".

This isn't a case of hypocrisy or anything like that - the fault is rather with the user who assumes that the standards don't exist. If Joe Bloggs' biography were to be submitted to a printed encyclopedia, it wouldn't get published and neither should it. The fact that Wikipedia is able to be written by everyone in the world doesn't mean that it's everyone's personal website.

Occasionally, these standards can produce an ironic situation. An irate user contacted me recently asking why I'd deleted his neologism. He told me that many of the people with whom he's involved in pub trivia quizzes have noticed that the team with the sexual pun in its name will usually come last, so therefore this was something which should be included in Wikipedia. Upon being told that the "law" was not notable, he responded that he will no longer recommend Wikipedia as a source for answers in his quizzes.

I can perhaps be excused for laughing uproariously at this case of sour grapes, as it demonstrates that the user in question in fact had no understanding of why Wikipedia (or seemingly any source) was valid to begin with. The exact same standards which mean that this site has an article which provides the answer in your next trivia quiz are the same ones at work to make certain that your neologism is not included until it becomes notable.

Generation of Content

Where a choice exists between performing a task and generating content, I will always prefer to generate content. In the case, for example, of articles on Eurovision entries, this may mean that a song will only get one of the categories it is meant to receive on its first "pass". This doesn't mean that I won't later retrace my steps and standardise spelling or add a new category - I have every intention of doing both - it just means that the primary focus will be on getting rid of those pesky red-links.

Inclusionism, Deletionism and Other Delusionisms

Those who subscribe to any "-ism" in relation to Wikipedia are welcome to do so, but I personally find them counterproductive. If an article is worthy of inclusion, it's worthy of inclusion on its own merits and not because some grand overarching theory says it should be. In the case of Inclusionism, I do have my doubts about its viability as it's far too easy a term to hide behind - should every local band be included here? Of course the answer is "no", but I've seen any number of contributions at AfD which preface the opposite view with the phrase "As an inclusionist...". This is not to say that "Inclusionism" as a philosophy is inherently flawed, however. Just as Muhammad Abdalla and Halim Rane (scholars I look up to greatly but am unlikely ever to contribute articles on at least until the latter has written a book or two) work tirelessly to distinguish "What Islam is" from "what some Muslims do", the same may be true with a distinction between "what Inclusionism is" and "what some Inclusionists do".

The "Big in Guam" Effect

If the subject of an article comes from a country, culture or time that I know nothing about, I will always defer to those with superior knowledge should it come up for deletion. If none such is forthcoming, I will make a good-faith attempt to establish the truth of the matter myself. I have in the past used my German abilities and what little I know about Arabic in deletion debates and proposals and I fully expect to do the same in future. If an article rests the notability of its subject on a source in a language I don't speak, I will accept in good faith any translation from that language to English. Likewise, I will do my best to translate anything from German (or, in the future, any other language I happen to learn) for the same purpose.

Ethnocentrism and Political Debates versus Neutrality

It would be naive to believe that every article is written from a neutral point of view. Any project this large will naturally attract those with an axe to grind on a specific topic. As a historian in real life, my task as I see it is to remove any biases I might have from my view of the article and see whether it still "holds up in court". I freely admit to not being perfect in this aim, as is the case for everyone in the world. That said, just because I move to delete something transparently written from one side of an issue doesn't mean that I won't move the same for something just as transparently written from the other side.

Precedent

Perhaps it's a reflection of my previous life as a law student, but I have been known to cite precedent here and there. I do this not because it's binding (it isn't), but because it reflects existing consensus. Except in situations where the proposed change to consensus is eminently absurd or there appears to be a lack of knowledge on what the consensus was, I'm anything but wedded to what went before. The citation, however, is designed to make certain that everyone is aware of what went before. We need to know exactly which giants' shoulders we're standing on.

Community

Except in the cases of those with whom I've had a lot of contact over a prolonged period (generally via Wikiprojects or some frequent AfD contributors), I'm afraid you'll have to accept that I don't know you from Adam. Not that this should matter a jot, since I will naturally assume that you're out here for the same reason that I am - building this wonderful resource into something even better than it currently is. Of course, the flipside is that if you're doing the wrong thing I'll let you know straight off the bat, regardless of how many edits you have.

If I warn you for doing something with a generic template, try not to take it personally. While I'd like it to mean "stop acting like a new user and behave as if you have a passing familiarity with the way we work here", nine times out of ten it will simply mean "I was first on the scene here but didn't have time to do more than subst a template in" (as a wild aside, am I the only one who wishes the default text of a template contained the "subst" already?). If there's vandalism afoot on my watchlist or anything like that, I'll revert it as rapidly as I can. If there's only 5 minutes before I need to race out the door to catch a bus, I'll still revert the vandalism but I won't be able to leave a detailed warning with the user doing it. Sure, it's an imprecise system, but the object of the exercise is to solve the problem, tell the miscreant not to do it again and have done with it. It's all a part of being bold in editing - I like to imagine that I'm the only one who's seen the personal attack or the vandalism or whatever. That way it spurs me to act.

"Recognition" of vandals

The more perceptive may notice that I have a userbox indicating how many times my userpage has been vandalised. This userbox has occasionally been interpreted by certain other users as creating a "badge of honour" for vandals (as in "Wow. Now he's over 20 because of my work"), although that is never an objection which has been made to me personally.

I prefer to see it in another way. As that number climbs ever higher, each individual act of vandalism puts the perpetrator into a larger group. One only has a reputation if one is unique, the first to do something, or somehow remarkable for doing something others have already done. Indicating that my userpage has been vandalised X-many times demonstrates to the would-be vandal that he or she is not unique (and reminds them of this fact when the vandalism is reverted), not the first to try it and that they are simply "vandalising", not "vandalising in an interesting way". Everything from changing a letter to make an offensive word through to blanking or rewriting the page is simply "vandalism", and thus unoriginal.

I'm reminded of a teacher I had many years ago who had the surname "Lamb". One classmate decided to make a "baaa" noise on hearing the name one day, and did so with great enthusiasm. The teacher responded, "You only think you're the first person to do that. Try something original", so the student then responded "woof" the next time the teacher's name was said. We, the students, all thought this was something original, but the teacher only sighed and said "By 'original', I meant 'something which has never been done before'. Making animal noises and being silly has been tried before. If you want to do something original, get your work done without me watching you."

RfA

Totally aside from the above, I've recently found myself around the RfA area a bit and contributing to some discussions regarding prospective admins. Now, I'm one who firmly believes that adminship is no big deal, although there are some elements out there in the wider community who patently prefer to make it a massive deal and adopt a counterproductive attitude purely to push their agendas.

That said, the overwhelming majority of RfAs I've participated in I've opposed. Why is this? It's simple. If I think a candidate would make a good admin (and there are no hard-and-fast criteria I use here), chances are I'm not the only one - there'll already be 10-20 people supporting them and very few people opposing. Thus, unless I'm first on the scene or thereabouts, I don't see any pressing need to support for the sake of supporting. Getting 100 or 250 supports or whatever the new magic number is looks great as a trophy, but adminship isn't a trophy anyway. I didn't get 50 supports in my own RfA and, excepting a few ne'er-do-wells and an honest mistake or two, haven't trodden on anyone's toes as yet.

With candidates who I don't think would make a good admin, however, I'm more inclined to voice a negative opinion. This is because there are - as I see it - more reasons to oppose someone than there are to support them. I might think X is uncivil all the time, you might think he doesn't understand one policy, someone else might think he doesn't understand another one and someone else might think he's got problems with copyright. All four are valid reasons to oppose, so there's no reason not to add another one. Who knows? There might be a perfectly rational explanation for my perceived problem, which might change my opinion. It's also significantly easier to define things in terms of "that which they are not", rather than "that which they are". In other words, I don't necessarily have a firm mental picture of "a good admin", but I've definitely got one of what a bad one would look like.

My Thoroughly Unscientific Method for Speedies and Prods

Every now and then, I check the Newpages log. If there's a red-linked username listed as creating a page, I automatically investigate what's been written there. This is because new users frequently don't understand that themselves, their girlfriends or their micronations aren't meant to be written up here. If it qualifies for a speedy, it gets listed as such. If it still looks fishy but not speedy material, it gets a Prod.

This is a hit-and-miss job, since there will obviously be some blue-linked users who'll write speedyable articles. In this situation, it's a simple case of reminding myself that I'm not on New Page Patrol (as some users like to say they are), and that if someone wants to investigate the whole bang lot of them, they're a better man than I.

One thing I'll never do in all of this is to speedy or Prod something in a field I know nothing about. Thus, computer manufacturers, bands from San Marino and so on are safe from me (although that doesn't mean that they're safe from everyone else). I'm only after the more egregious instances of people writing articles which aren't meant to be here.

Double-tagging

A quick word on the habit that some people have of attaching CSD tags to Prod-tagged articles: Will ya stop already?

For one thing, the overwhelming majority of Prods are made because a CSD category simply doesn't fit the article (there is no CSD category which says "this article is a recipe", for example, so it gets Prod'ed). For another, the Prod-tagging automatically enters the article into the deletion process. As admins, we don't delete one-day-old Prods for the simple reason that that isn't how it's meant to be done. If you want to Prod something, Prod it and watchlist it. In five days or so, it'll be either gone or AfD'd (either because the admin who came upon it felt it should, or you maintain after some edits that it should).

I can't speak for all admins by any means, but when I see an article both CSD-tagged and Prod-tagged, I wait for the Prod to expire. When I see an expired-Prod with a CSD riding shotgun, I just get irritated.

Spam

Let's make this very clear - "spam" as a CSD heading only relates to people trying to advertise or sell something. An article on an up-and-coming high school basketball player cannot conceivably be spam, since the young man is not in a position to sell himself or his services. Similarly, an article on an unreleased album cannot conceivably be spam, for the simple reason that one cannot purchase an unreleased item.

Even were our hypothetical album to be released, it would still be a very unusual article if it were spam and not any other kind of CSD. Even the most amateurish albums recorded by your cousin's covers band in the local pub tend to have an article which talks about it in a passingly serious manner. Thus, there is no attempt being made to sell the thing under discussion.

If we were to take the view that the thing under discussion is being discussed purely to drum up sales, we would be embarking upon a very dangerous quest indeed. If your band is automatically trying to sell its album by writing about it (but not, I stress, saying "Buy our album"), then the subjects of a great many articles are trying to sell themselves as well. I will admit that on occasion I've sought out an album which is listed in an artist's discography here, but that is quite a different thing to a naked attempt to sell anything.

On Schools

"All schools are inherently notable". No they're not. What all schools are is inherently important to the community from which their population is drawn, for better or for worse. My university is notable, it's big, important and old and has a lot of important people associated with it. My high school is notable because it has two famous people associated with it as well as having been in the media for less savoury reasons. My primary school may well be notable because I seem to recall learning that some famous people went to it, but if they didn't it would need another claim to fame. If it didn't have another claim to fame, it wouldn't be worth writing an article on it.

Which brings me to WP:SCHOOLS and its many children. The first thing to say about this proposal is that it's precisely that - a proposal. It's not policy and in its current state I don't think it will become policy. That said, it's as close to an objective measurement of where to draw the line with school articles as I think exists anywhere. Therefore, if (heaven forbid) I find myself getting drawn into a good old fashioned schools debate, that will be my first port of call until someone comes up with something better. I don't intend to get into a schools debate too often, for the simple reason that the proposal is flawed and leaves all comers open to a series of unanswerable circular arguments. Even the best of us have our weaknesses, though.

Just as not all schools are inherently notable, neither are all schools inherently non-notable. If I spy a poorly-written article on a school - particularly if it looks like it was written by a student there during a dull class - that's a warning flag going off in my mind. The school may still be notable, but if it doesn't make any assertion thereof in the article then it's potentially speedy-time. If I see an article which does assert notability, that's enough for me.

Occasionally, and I do mean occasionally, people are tempted to engage in some jiggery-pokery about the whole issue of schools. In a way, I can understand that - it makes sense to have a vested interest in the presence of a school article if you're connected to it (having one in its absence is a bit weirder, but the internet throws these things up every now and again). Just as long as any argument is in fact based in policy, I'll be happy.

Of course, just because a school is notable doesn't mean that everything which goes on there is notable. My university is notable and at least two of the lecturers who I've been fortunate enough to study under are (there may well be another two or three who are, but I haven't yet checked that thoroughly enough) as well. That doesn't mean, however, that all of my lecturers are notable. Neither does it mean that the buildings they teach in are automatically notable, nor does it mean that the other pieces of university life are automatically notable. They may well be, but they can't ride on the coat-tails of a notable lecturer lecturing at a notable university.

The same is true of my high school. It's notable, but I strongly doubt that any of the staff there are notable. The one former staff member I thought might've been is in fact not notable, so that's an important point in itself. What's certainly not notable is the rest of school life - the sporting teams, the unofficial clubs we formed and the like.

If that doesn't make any sense, think of it this way. The President of the USA is notable because he won an election (or two elections) and leads a very powerful country, is responsible for this that and the other thing and so on. What he ate for breakfast, however, is not notable even though it relates to him. Indeed, what he ate for breakfast is probably as verifiable as an article saying "This is a game played by students at [insert name of school]".

On Process

Apparently, anything contested (even at Speedy level) should be taken as being a "controversial deletion" and go straight to AfD. For myself, I find this to be exceptionally pedantic. Consider the following two examples:

• A user writes up an article on his best mate. Nice bloke, but completely and utterly deletable material. I tag it as such. The tag is removed with no added information asserting notability. Technically, it's next stop AfD because this removal (even if done by an IP) is "opposition to the article's deletion". Sure, in a purely technical sense it is, but it's hardly opposition in the sense of constructive improvements to the article. The bloke remains as thoroughly non-notable as he was the first time the article was edited. To me, this is a case of WP:SNOW or WP:IAR coming into play. Process says that we AfD this, which takes time and gums up the works until someone realises that it was a speedy all along. Process is important, and never let it be said that I claim otherwise. What process isn't, though, is the be-all and end-all of life (see WP:NOT if you don't believe me).
• Alternatively, a user writes up an article on a person or a place which doesn't seem notable and doesn't throw up anything particularly useful Google-wise. The speedy-removal is accompanied by (or closely followed by) the addition of copious quantities of information - in one recent case, another user contributed the fact that what seemed to have just been an album track was in fact released as a single and used as the theme song for a professional wrestler. This, I'm sure you'll agree, is what "opposition" is meant to be about. What we've now got is constructive improvements to the article which makes it worthwhile to have around. Heck, even if someone removes the speedy tag and adds an explanation on the Talk page I'll be happy (as long as the explanation is more than just "John is really cool and everyone in the world needs to know this").

In other words, I only view a deletion as "controversial" when and if there's a real controversy about it. Other users have pointed out that painters from Niger may well not have much of a web presence but have masses of books written about them. If this is the case, then I'd expect that any previously-speedy-tagged article on such a painter would have these books added. Just removing a tag because the painter's a friend of yours and is going to be big one day is not the creation of controversy.

Likewise, claiming that the above is the creation of controversy is mindless bureaucracy.

The Prefix "Wiki-"

No offence to those who like it, but this is one of the things that drives me bananas when I see it. Why is the phrase "I'm taking a wikibreak" or "I'm taking a wikivacation" in any way superior to "I'm taking a break" or "I'm taking a vacation" (aside from any American-English aesthetic value derived from the verb "to take" turning up here)? The simple answer is that it isn't superior at all. Thus, you're never going to see me talking about a "wikipolicy" or a "wikibreak" or even a "wikitrout" (as one enterprising user suggests another should be hit on the head with here). Just as the code that these pages are written in is almost plain English compared to an awful lot of programming languages, so too will I speak plain English when I type in it.

Closely allied to that is the bad habit many users - newer ones, I'll grant - have of calling the place "Wiki" as if this is a useful shortening. This is a Wiki, but far from the only one in existence (I've personally used and contributed to at least 4 others that I can think of immediately).

The Menace of April 1

Let me preface this section by saying that I do in fact have a sense of humour and I'm not some kind of curmudgeon out to destroy innocent fun on April 1.

The problem is that we have no clear-cut rules on what you can and can't do on April Fools' Day. We have a featured article from left field which is still a valid topic, which is OK. Likewise the DYKs are slightly unusual but still informative. The problem is when you realise that for a great many other processes here, April 1 is the same as March 31 or April 2 - it's just another day in the 365 which make up a given year.

Thus, we see a spike in silly AfD nominations (of articles on Wikipedia, Pluto, Jimmy Wales and others) and people being funny in their comments about those nominations. Again, nothing wrong with it in the abstract, but it just opens the door a crack further for people to make bad faith nominations. Someone can nominate an eminently notable subject for deletion and claim to be having a larf on April 1 and the decision as to whether the joke is funny - or even a joke - is up to the closing admin, which then makes it subjective as to whether they're told off for bad faith nominations or given a smiley face for brightening the place up.

Similarly, a topic which is perhaps of borderline notability can be nominated and viewed as a joke by all concerned, despite the seriousness of the nomination.

It's never going to be a major issue, but what it serves to do is to make the important process of weeding the articles out which shouldn't be here in the first place just that little bit less objective. I'm not convinced it's a good thing to have that happening.

The Golden Rule

Superseding all of the above is my Golden Rule:

• Keep a Sense of Humour: The worst thing anyone can do here is to lose their sense of humour about the entire project. What else are we meant to think when words like "Vanispamcruftisement" are accepted parts of the lexicon, other than that this is not a place which entirely takes itself seriously? Thus, every now and then I will contribute to a debate with a pun or an otherwise joking comment. This doesn't mean that I don't take the deletion of an article seriously, just that I don't view it as a matter of life and death.