User:Aine63

I've been editing at Wikipedia for about a year now, or maybe not quite that long. Most of the topics I have contributed to are related to discrimination, but not all. I've been trying to contribute more and more to the Wiki Film Project.

Besides editing at Wikipedia, I'm an editor at the Open Directory Project (a.k.a. Dmoz) and work on a number of categories there.

My other interests are photography, road trips, finding ghost towns, chintzy americana, good film and B-movies, dogs, history, the Internet, ghost stories, baseball, web design, cognitive engineering,and Impressionism.

This user thinks:

• Wikipedia is a wonderful platform for people to write about and discuss ideas that interest them
• Most Wikipedians are very devoted to seeing that the quality of the content here is sound.
• Most Wikipedians try to be constructive with their contributions and feedback
• Most Wikipedians are very cool, interesting people.
• The scope of all of Wiki is amazing
• NPOV is critical, but it often takes multiple contributors at an article to achieve.

This user is appreciative of:

• All the great articles that others have created
• All the constuctive contributions and criticism to articles I've worked on or created.
• Good suggestions for content additions, particularly if the suggester helps by adding the content (hint)
• All the formatting help, as I'm still learning

This user is really sick of:

• Critiques of articles by Wikipedians who haven't really read the articles

• Wikipedians with long-winded criticisms on what is lacking in content, the time and energy for which could have been used to contribute the content that is deemed to be lacking.

...and along these lines - Wikipedians who assert that an article is too POV if it does not represent their own personal POV. But rather than add content that represents their POV, they just keep complaining or try to delete what is there.

As the saying goes, "Any idiot can criticize."

• Wikipedians who jump into the middle of content disagreements and make judgements or take sides without aprising themselves of the entire situation or it's history. (Wiki Admins can be some of the worst at doing this.)

• Wiki bullies who respond to bruised egos by hounding other Wikipedians or their content. Even worse are those who try to get their buddies to help them, creating a mobbing dynamic which I've read on other user pages is an all too common occurrence here.

Of all of the above in the "sick of" list, this user will be limiting any discussions, particularly if they get heated. I delight in working with people who are constructive, but will not be wasting any more energy on people who prefer to attack rather than contribute, particularly if they deal with bruised egos by starting to hound the work of other Wikipedians, and try to uncover an tiny flaw that they can in retaliation. Since I contribute to quite a few controversial topics, I seem to run into my fair share of these personalities. But I think they represent a very small group here. I also think they are not worth expending energy on, other than the minimal.

I apologize to Wikipedia if anyone thinks I'm not being civil by raising the above facts, but these are problems at Wiki, and need to be raised.

*************************************************************************************************************************************

With all due respect to Errol Morris, this user thinks Genghis Blues is one of the greatest documentaries ever made. Tuva or bust!