Wikipedia commentary/Wikipedia Anti-Rules Talk

The Cunctator's Anti-Rule: Delete or overwrite that which annoys you in any way.

Response to rule 9):

I'll break the ice in replying to these to suggest that there is at least one good reason for changing an article from British English to American or vice versa: if you, a writer of one dialect, add paragraphs or otherwise substantially change the content of an article in the other dilect, and don't feel competent to copyedit your own changes in the other dialect, by all means just copyedit the whole article in yours, regardless of where it started. --LDC

LDC: Surely editing British English isn't that hard? I can easily write either. (Though in practice I'm lazy so I write a mishmash, using British spellings one moment and American spellings the next...) -- Simon J Kissane

I'm probably far more qualified than most Americans; I wrote most of the article here on British/American? differences. But no, I don't consider myself qualified to copyedit British text, so I wouldn't consider 95% of Americans (and probably 80% of Brits :-) qualified to do so. It's a far more complex issue than making sure you spell "colour" and "specialise" differently, and even grammar like "the team are..."; there are also matters of usage that are not covered in that article. Also all texts are understood in the context of a culture, and even those of us who have mastered the spelling and grammar differences can't be sure that the words we use have the same cultural connotations. Often that doesn't matter, but when you're writing, say, about politics or culture itself, it matters a lot. --LDC

First of all let Cunctuator sell a Cunctipedia when enough HD space exists on the PC-unctuator. Second, it does grow weary to try so hard to propose that a new paradigm in an article exists(see New Age revison history), then find all these "science guys" slamming the book of rules(the 500 yr old scientific progress report) down. Third, where the hell is Kuala Lampur and why doesn't he feed them Koalas instead of making them wait around while he over-edits anything he wants ? "The Mate with a grate" eh ?--BF

BF - I'd gladly respond to this if I even vaguely understood what your complaint was. Kuala Lumpur is the capital city of Malaysia.

You're not supposed to be proposing new things. You're supposed to be reporting on existing things in an unbiased manner. If you are interested in doing something different, do it elsewhere!

Ok and if we all were unbiased you who are such experts in wikipediatrics would either be at peace or more boring than you already are. Thanks Manning for that nice lecture in newage/talk. I am learning =)

wrong - I never said I am unbiased. Hell, I have some very some very strong beliefs. But I endeavour at all costs to ensure I don't report them as "the truth" in the Wikipedia. It's an issue of giving fair consideration to all. - MB

Manning is biased against bias.

You got a problem with that??? Meet me outside!

---

A comment on the "anti-rules" page at present: this page is a disgrace. I wish you would all agree to delete it. It just causes more ill-will, and the joke has run very thin. --LMS

Larry - with all due respect, could you substantiate your claim that this page causes "ill-will"? I acknowledge that you have opposed it from day one (as is your right), but I find it quite funny myself, and I suspect I am not alone. However, if it is really upsetting the majority of people then by all means delete it. I'm just not convinced that that is the case. - MB

LMS, you are, generally speaking, the most biased person i have encountered on the Wikipedia and the most insistent about imposing your biases on others. It seems to me that you are hypersensitive to any criticism of yourself, your opiions, or Wikipedia. I'm sure your motives are of the best but I really think you need a serious re-examination of your values on this.