This user lives in Australia.
This user has a law degree.





Hello, I'm Jack. My interests include Australian law and culture.

My view on WikiMedia sites and their guidelines

edit

When applying guidelines the following approach should be taken by editors when trying to interpret the how the rules ought be applied:

"I know it when I see it, and someone else will know it when they see it, but what they see and what they know may or may not be what I see and what I know, and that's okay"

Its foolish to try resolve interpretive disputes by arguing definitions or arguing about what the words in a guideline 'truly mean'. Such arguments often involve editors reading additional words into the text, or incorporating the words of prior discussions into the text. My view is that we should instead just take words at their face because this is a more pragmatic approach.

One perpetually vexed linguistic issue on this website is the meaning of 'Significant Coverage' and how those words should be interpreted when determining notability. My view regarding this is 'I know it when I see it'. Making categorical declarations about what things can or can't amount to 'significant coverage' is a Sisyphean task. The better approach is for editors to trust their own judgement and command of the English language, and to grow an acceptance that for these kinds of issues it is inevitable that reasonable minds may differ.

My view is that all editors should apply guidelines as written, and that community consensus is a type of guideline that must be followed. I always follow guidelines as written, and treat community consensus as incorporated within that guidance where decided by consensus.

Recognised articles

edit

Law articles

edit

Created

edit

Adopted

edit
edit

Created

edit

Adopted

edit

Templates

edit

Created

edit

Adopted

edit

To-do list

edit

Public Domain

edit
Released into public domain
I agree to release my text and image contributions, unless otherwise stated, into the public domain. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my contributions under public domain terms, please check the multi-licensing guide.

Wikipedia could be better

edit

Ms. Categorized: Gender, notability, and inequality on Wikipedia

Wikipedia belongs to the world. It does not belong to Jimmy, it’s editors, to consensus, the admins, or to the arb committee. Least of all does it belong to the self proclaimed 'encyclopediaists'; whatever that self-important circular reference means.

The only way this site can address systemic issues with its coverage is through a substantial relaxation of the notability guidelines. This would not lower the quality of the site, which is sufficiently protected by WP:VERIFY, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV.

Until changes are made, EN:Wikipedia will be wasting its potential. It will continue to prioritize coverage capriciously and disturbingly narrowly.

The "ethnic cleansing" problem

edit

In particular, the English Wikipedia has an "ethnic cleansing" problem. Subjects from countries where English is not the native or official language and utilize a non-Latin script alphabet are especially susceptible. When citing references, English-language sources are not required, but a lack thereof is enough of a shortcoming for an article to be marked for deletion. Sources in the topic's native language are often ignored, even in cases where knowledgeable users provide them; falling under the scrutiny of the eyes of the wrong group of users can easily lead to the systematic removal of invaluable articles. Actively trying to save these articles is a daunting task to undertake, but the effort on those who commit to handle this issue to the best of their ability is desperately needed. - plicit

Reliable Sourcing is what matters

edit

Statement from the UserPage of Rschen7754, to which I concur:

"Especially in today's world of misinformation, I believe in reliable sourcing and verifiability.

I do not believe in the pedantic misinterpretation of said policies by some as a means to systematically delete an entire topic area of content that has existed and been the work of hundreds of editors over the past two decades.

I do not intend to make substantial edits to the English Wikipedia under the current state of affairs, outside of attempts to make a (perhaps futile) attempt to resolve the situation. --Rschen7754 03:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)"

Statement of the problem: [1]
edit