John Carter wrote:Google shows the existence of an Encyclopedia of World War II edited by Spencer Tucker, with others by Alan Axelrod and John Keegan, a Complete Encyclopedia of World War II, a Historical Encyclopedia of World War II, an Oxford Companion to World War II, all rather quickly. I think it should be possible for someone to consult them and the others that no doubt exist, look at the reviews for comparatice purposes, and be able to come up with some sort of less than official essay or guideline which might be able to provide a broad view of relative importance of Nazi atrocities and weirdness dor wikipedia articles in general and maybe a few indicators as to what circumstances might prompt maybe a separate pargraph or section on unpopular or negative aspects of the regime.
Translation: Wikipedia can be better by taking editorial lessons from other encyclopedias.
What a genius. The world is lucky to have a place where such brilliant insight is available.
And as banal as this observation is, it of course misses the obvious issue, one that is immediately obvious to serious and knowledgeable Wikipedia critics - the Wikipediots simply would not go along with it. Any essays or guidelines which have at their heart a belief that the magic sauce of consensus isn't enough to achieve perfection in the arena of editorial decision-making, will never be allowed.
It also assumes the Wikipediots are willing to put serious amounts of time and effort into research based essays or guidelines to improve Wikipedia. This is obviously an erroneous assumption - Wikipedia essays are merely the personal thoughts of individuals, and guidelines are nothing more than a coda of what they tend to do as a collective. Neither type of Wikipedia document has any assumption of correctness about them, outside of the Wikipediot idea of correctness - which is, of course, consensus.
If it were remotely possible for Wikipediots to grok that they are rank amateurs at the encyclopedia writing game, and therefore it would be in their best interests to have a guideline which actually guides them as to how professional outfits do it, then the magic sauce of consensus would have already magiced such documents into existence.
Wikipediots frankly don't give a flying fuck how the professionals do it. They actually think they're better at it than the experts, their model being wholly depreciated by the populist appeal of their free junk pile. This arrogant belief is what drives their sick cult. This is why their grubby little hands seize any tiny little study which somehow shows they're better than a proper encyclopedia, happily overlooking the problems of adequate comparison such studies usually contain.
Probably the saddest thing about this comment, is that it fails to recognise that the proposed essays and guidelines would simply be topic specific interpretations of the high level documents they already have which deal with the editorial issue of space allocation. Namely the policy WP:NPOV and guideline WP:NOTE. Of course, what serious and knowledgeable critics appreciate, is how and why the Wikipediots always fail to properly appreciate (or happily ignore) the meaning of these high level documents, and therefore always fail to put their guidance into practice.
See this Zoloft, this is what you've done for the critic movement. This is why people are ignoring your site, because it looks like nothing more than a safe space for absolute fuckwits, most of whom are active Wikipediots or exiled Wikipediots. No serious or knowledgeable critic needs or wants to hear the thoughts of morons like this, except other Wikipediots of course, let alone be ignored by them when they point out the obvious flaws in their reasoning.
