If you are alone you need to understand the rules reasonably well.
What I propose here is just to raise issues on talk pages and if someone else already wrote something make a new argument. Often this doesn’t take long.
You are not allowed to refer to primary sources such as journal articles but must only refer to secondary sources such as textbooks or newspapers, which are often out of date, biased or wrong.
Rules in Wikipedia are a matter of consensus. If you care about the rules it’s easy to give your opinion when rule changes get proposed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Feedback_request_service is a way to register yourself to get regularly a message on your talk page for one rules discussion. While a user that only participates in rule discussion and nothing else is likely seen as a bit dubious, if you write short messages on the talk page whenever you think something should be improved,
One small example: You are (or were when I looked) required to refer to male genital mutilation as “circumcision” and are not allowed to refer to it as “male genital mutilation”.
Wikipedia’s rule is to use the terms that are most commonly used by authoritative sources out in the world. Given how language is used out in the world it’s often not consistent.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s a hot button political issue or an unpolitical one’s like deciding whether to use the greek or latin name for an anatomical structure where things would get easier when latin names get used consistently.
The opinions of the doctors who make money from this operation on males must be deferred to as definitive.
That’s not true. If you could for example argue that authoritatie sources like the New York Times and the Washington Post use another term then the doctors you have a case within the rules of Wikipedia.
While you can argue that rules should be different (and you actually can argue that in RFC’s in Wikipedia) it’s deferring to authoritative sources is a rule that works for finding consensus.
And wikipedia’s view that there is a definitive version of the truth on any given issue makes it utterly hopeless at covering anything that is controversial.
I think this misunderstands Wikipedia. Wikipedia’s goal isn’t truth but to reflect the current consensus among good sources. This is argued quite explicitely.
I do think that a place where I can go when I want to read the consensus among good sources about a topic is valuable.
It an openly known fact that mainstream media leans heavily on one side of the political spectrum. This makes it very difficult to find “authoritative” sources that tell a certain side of the story on a lot of topics.
As a habit, when I want to edit a page, I check the talk page. On any topic that the mainstream media touches (not only politics, but also critical reviews of movies, etc.), it is often longer than the article, and riddled with nitpicks and gotchas. I don’t want to waste my time on arguing there, and I think that’s the intended effect.
On any topic that the mainstream media touches (not only politics, but also critical reviews of movies, etc.), it is often longer than the article
Fun fact, a couple years ago, as background research for a blog post I was writing, I read the entire archives of Talk:Cold fusion, literally starting at Archive 1 and continuing through all 48 (maybe 44 at the time or whatever) pages. It was possibly the most boring thing I’ve ever done. Every now and then there was a new reference or argument, but mostly the same arguments were rehashed over, and over, and over, across the generations, as old arguers would quit or get banned, and they’d be replaced by newcomers on each side of the debate. :-P
It an openly known fact that mainstream media leans heavily on one side of the political spectrum. This makes it very difficult to find “authoritative” sources that tell a certain side of the story on a lot of topics.
It’s true that there are topics where it’s hard to find sources that qualify for Wikipedia and those aren’t good fights to be had. However there are plenty of cases where sources are available.
Talk pages are about discourse between different people. The amount of people on both sides matters for how conflicts are resolved. If someone else already made an argument adding your position in addition is helpful.
The amount of people on both sides matters for how conflicts are resolved. If someone else already made an argument adding your position in addition is helpful.
On controversial topics, a few persons arguing can already produce an article’s length of points. How can a newcomer weigh in? There is (generally) no vote. You can just add more points. For those points to have a slight chance of being relevant, you need to read all the discussion and the rules referred to. And then someone will point that you forgot a yet-unmentioned-rule, and your words will only add to the noise and make it more difficult for the next one to weigh in.
There’s no formal vote but if you have a page where two people have a long discussion of A vs B and a few other people take position A (and write a sensible comment—“I support A” might not be enough) but no additional person takes position B according to Wikipedia policy there’s consensus for A.
Then when the page gets changed to A it’s invalid for anybody to switch it to B. The lines around what counts as consensus are a bit fuzzy but in general that’s the decision making process. If people don’t agree on what consensus is conflicts can be escalated.
If you are alone you need to understand the rules reasonably well.
What I propose here is just to raise issues on talk pages and if someone else already wrote something make a new argument. Often this doesn’t take long.
Rules in Wikipedia are a matter of consensus. If you care about the rules it’s easy to give your opinion when rule changes get proposed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Feedback_request_service is a way to register yourself to get regularly a message on your talk page for one rules discussion. While a user that only participates in rule discussion and nothing else is likely seen as a bit dubious, if you write short messages on the talk page whenever you think something should be improved,
Wikipedia’s rule is to use the terms that are most commonly used by authoritative sources out in the world. Given how language is used out in the world it’s often not consistent.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s a hot button political issue or an unpolitical one’s like deciding whether to use the greek or latin name for an anatomical structure where things would get easier when latin names get used consistently.
That’s not true. If you could for example argue that authoritatie sources like the New York Times and the Washington Post use another term then the doctors you have a case within the rules of Wikipedia.
While you can argue that rules should be different (and you actually can argue that in RFC’s in Wikipedia) it’s deferring to authoritative sources is a rule that works for finding consensus.
I think this misunderstands Wikipedia. Wikipedia’s goal isn’t truth but to reflect the current consensus among good sources. This is argued quite explicitely.
I do think that a place where I can go when I want to read the consensus among good sources about a topic is valuable.
It an openly known fact that mainstream media leans heavily on one side of the political spectrum. This makes it very difficult to find “authoritative” sources that tell a certain side of the story on a lot of topics.
As a habit, when I want to edit a page, I check the talk page. On any topic that the mainstream media touches (not only politics, but also critical reviews of movies, etc.), it is often longer than the article, and riddled with nitpicks and gotchas. I don’t want to waste my time on arguing there, and I think that’s the intended effect.
Fun fact, a couple years ago, as background research for a blog post I was writing, I read the entire archives of Talk:Cold fusion, literally starting at Archive 1 and continuing through all 48 (maybe 44 at the time or whatever) pages. It was possibly the most boring thing I’ve ever done. Every now and then there was a new reference or argument, but mostly the same arguments were rehashed over, and over, and over, across the generations, as old arguers would quit or get banned, and they’d be replaced by newcomers on each side of the debate. :-P
It’s true that there are topics where it’s hard to find sources that qualify for Wikipedia and those aren’t good fights to be had. However there are plenty of cases where sources are available.
Talk pages are about discourse between different people. The amount of people on both sides matters for how conflicts are resolved. If someone else already made an argument adding your position in addition is helpful.
On controversial topics, a few persons arguing can already produce an article’s length of points. How can a newcomer weigh in? There is (generally) no vote. You can just add more points. For those points to have a slight chance of being relevant, you need to read all the discussion and the rules referred to. And then someone will point that you forgot a yet-unmentioned-rule, and your words will only add to the noise and make it more difficult for the next one to weigh in.
There’s no formal vote but if you have a page where two people have a long discussion of A vs B and a few other people take position A (and write a sensible comment—“I support A” might not be enough) but no additional person takes position B according to Wikipedia policy there’s consensus for A.
Then when the page gets changed to A it’s invalid for anybody to switch it to B. The lines around what counts as consensus are a bit fuzzy but in general that’s the decision making process. If people don’t agree on what consensus is conflicts can be escalated.