Wikipedia:Editor review/AstroHurricane001
AstroHurricane001
AstroHurricane001 (talk · contribs)
Hi. I am a user who registered about 5 months ago. I have about 1000 edits, and I think it's about time that I was given suggestions and comments. I've never gone on a review before, so I hope I qualify. I'm quite experienced with wikipedia, but now I'm looking for suggestions. I've seen that this site is very up-to-date and info is very easy to find. In some cases, it takes years to find info through a search engine,but only minutes to find an article on the wiki. Events are updated, in some cases, less than a minute after it happens. That's what I like about wikipedia, and that's why I came here. So, that's a summary.
]Reviews
- There's nothing much for me to critique. You've been civil, you've contributed to a lot of articles, and overall you've been a great editor. Keep up the good work.--TBCΦtalk? 07:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent work on MOTD, excellent edit summary usage, good mainspace edit count percentage. All I suggest is focusing on mainspace edits. Keep up the good work, ]
Comments
- View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- I have created several articles. I created articles for all meteor showers that are labelled "strong". I also created several comet articles, and it looks like I was the first user to create an article regarding Comet McNaught, which turned out tobe the brightest in decades. I also created articles for all the red links on the animals new to science page. Please see my page for details. Suggestions are welcome, hope I qualify. ]
- Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- Well, not very often, but there probably were a few instances. My userpages were vandalized by 3 users, one a newcomer at the time whose only edit was to my userpage, one an anon who mayor may not know me in real life, one one a user who created a multiple number of nonnotable articles and might be the same person as the anon. My page was later semiprotected, but the first request was denied. I have had disscussions where people dissaggreed with me, but that didn't really cause stress. When I was a newcomer, someone notifed me politely that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that I was making too many talkpage edits, but since it was polite, it didn't cause stress. However, like some people, that user almost never responds to my messages, although I don't really mind. Nomerous times, I have read disscussions where the outcome of the consensus was, in my opinion, totally unjustified, although I usually didn't get involved. Also, I do not like database lockdowns. ]
- What in your opinion are Wikipedia's strengths? The Transhumanist 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, wikipedia is one of the most up-to-date sites on the internet. It could take months, or even years to find some key statistic or fact on the internet by search engine, but once you search on wikipedia, you will find up-to-date info in minutes, even seconds. This makes wiki one of the most priceless featuresof the internet. If you're in doubt about the info you're seeing, you could check the references or history. You could disscuss articles to improve them. All this and more, where you would probably never dream of finding elsewhere on the internet, make the wikis one of the best places to find info on the web, it only takes seconds, because usually you have all the info in one article. This is a lot faster than going on a search engine, compiling easily forgettable info, searching tens of sites. If there's a topic that's not on wikipedia, you could write it, or request that someone else write it for you. There's also the reference desk, where you could ask questions and help others with questions, and the village pump, where you could do the same with topics about wikipedia. This is, in my opinion, why I decided to become a contributor. ]
- What do you believe are Wikipedia's main weaknesses? The Transhumanist 21:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Since wikipedia is easily editable, it is often targeted by spammers, vandals, and terrorists. If someone gained knowledge about wikipedia, they could then try to destroy it, which is why we might need more admins. If someone suddenly mass-abused wikipedia, it could suffer major difficulties for hours. Another problem I heard about is the blocking of wiki in mainland China. Just like wikipedia blocking a country is not a good idea, as it did to Qatar for a few hours, blocking of wikipedia from a whole country for months is not a good idea either, as this whould temporarily separate about 20% of the world from this truly valuable resource, although another site has solved this problem. Wikipedia is a global community, but different laws in different countries could create problems. Copyright, for example, limits the avalibility of images. Too many copyright and other legal problems could get the foundation sued. Another major problem, is quite unforseen, but could possibly bring wikipedia to an end in the next few decades. The problem is, wikipedia's servers, foundations, and wikipedia itself, it located in the greater Tampa area in Florida. Sure, it has servers in Seoul and Amsterdam, but its heart lies in florida. Any major hurricane, tornado, or sea level rise, could destroy the foundation and servers. The other two servers could be threatened by major storms and see level rise as well. People have donated over a millin dollars to the wikimedia foundation, but that stll might not be enough to sustain the massively growing population of wikipedians. Also, the deletions are taking over the community, as community-based editor-encouraging parts of the site are slowly dissapearing. ]