User:Ondertitel
I add content and try to reference what others have added. I work mostly on warez related articles. Referencing those articles is hard.[1][2]
| “ | Much has been written about some of the elements of the dark side, mostly in the form of Wikipedia articles; blogs; and articles in trade journals, magazines and newspapers. However, there is a paucity of scholarly work that brings them together.[3] | ” |
Doing this I find errors in sources Wikipedia considers excellent ((peer-reviewed) papers, books, ...), while otherwise excellent primary or "self-published" sources can be a red flag for extremist deletionists (those that you only see talking/reverting instead of helping to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM or going towards the WP:AIM of the project by adding content), even though the exact same sources are used by the former category ... For uncontroversial parts, one has to adapt to the topic. In time it will be replaced by better sources that are harder to find or read. One must not limit themselves to English literature only. Many good sources are in German for the warez topics. Already plenty of sources are added to page references, but they are still barely used for citing more than the one sentence.
For the warez scene, Wikipedia is unique in how it brings various notable topics together of this underground culture. I started editing with the single purpose of WP:PRESERVEing what others already added. My approach is based on sourcing, like a literature review, because I know editors tend to piss off new contributors and domain experts that are needed the most.[4][5] I can speak from experience by getting banned after encountering a rule juggler. (challenging/deleting stuff, while there is a picture illustrating the sentence (!), after I added a reference not deemed good enough,[6] while much later I encountered that source in an academic paper) Most would've totally given up before even getting started/banned![7] Not for me because it was the reason I started editing in the first place albeit slowly. English is not my mother tongue. It matters: [1]. About editor gangs: https://archive.vn/YnJnD
Exhaustive list of Wikipedians I've encountered that understand the shithead problem:[8] Shaddim, Brews ohare.
A good read to understand why it became this way: The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
See also: Brandolini's law. Encounters: [2] [3]
Good sources with errors: (pointing out factual errors in academic papers)
- "die bereits seit über einem Jahrzehnt bestehen" Neither Class or Myth were active for more than a decade.[9]
| “ | Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. --Richard P. Feynman | ” |
[10][11][12] An outside look on Wikipedia by Helen Buynisk: Wikipedia: Rotten to the Core
The Fundamental Law of Administrative Workings [F.L.A.W.]:[13]
| “ | The real world is what is reported to the system, in other words, the system has a severely censored and distorted view of reality from biased and filtering sensory organs. This distorted view displaces understanding of the actual real-world, which in turn pales and tends to disappear. This displacement creates a type of sensory deprivation and a kind of hallucinogenic effect on those inside the systems, causing them to lose common sense. In addition to negatively affecting those inside the system, the system attracts to it people who are optimized for the pathological environment the system creates. Thus, systems attract systems-people. | ” |
Ideas for Wikipedia
[edit]- Require decent edit summaries from anonymous editors to combat vandalism. i.e. nothing auto generated or empty
- No edit counts anywhere, only contribution counts. i.e. count +500 char edits only
| “ | Some of the best Encyclopædia Britannica articles have been formally revised less than a dozen times, and so those esteemed author/editors would appear, to us, as near useless (with edit counts of near zero). We need, in my opinion, as much of that—small number, high quality, long-in-substance, scholarly edits—as anything else. The notion that large numbers of small edits is a hallmark of quality editing is so much nonsense. --Leprof_7272 | ” |
Wikipedia radicalism and zealotry
[edit]- Resolution of images reduced so much it becomes impossible to discern what's on them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Wave
I'm looking for the actual texts of these references
[edit]I'll make a list. #ICanHazPDF Libgen Sci-Hub Z-Library Anna's Archive
Papers
[edit]- Anything new I don't know about or newly published papers.
Books
[edit]- Bruegmann, Ulrich (2006). Divx R.t.f.m. – Divx 6 (in German). ISBN 978-1-84728-676-5.
- Fisk, Nathan W. (2009). Understanding online piracy: the truth about illegal file sharing. Found: https://archive.org/details/understandingonl0000fisk
- J. D. Lasica (2 May 2005). Darknet: Hollywood's War Against the Digital Generation. Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-68334-6. Found: https://archive.org/details/darknethollywood00lasi
Interesting links
[edit]Tools
[edit]- DOI Citation Formatter - Select wikipedia-templates
- DOI Wikipedia reference generator (down) [4]
- Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books
- BibTeX to Wikipedia - http://jstools.ucoz.net/bibtex2wiki (broken)
References to use/add to specific articles
[edit]Here I will list references that will add value to certain articles or aren't used at all yet. Feel free to add or start working on this list.
- Rau, Lars. "Phänomenologie und Bekämpfung von 'Cyberpiraterie' - Eine kriminologische und kriminalpolitische Analyse" (PDF).
References
[edit]- ^ Mennecke, Thomas (2008-11-26). "BREIN Claims Success Against 'TV Land' Top Site". Slyck.com.
Reporting on the 'scene' is never easy - unlike P2P, there are no media relations and scene release aren't published like press statements.
- ^ Martin Paul Eve (2021-11-20). "Citing Pirate Artifacts".
By necessity, the bibliography to my book on Warez must cite a number of unconventional works that are not covered by standard style manuals. In particular, I need to make reference to NFO files that contain ASCII art and other iNFOrmation about the Warez Scene.
- ^ Won Kim, Ok-Ran Jeong, Chulyun Kim, Jungmin So, The dark side of the Internet: Attacks, costs and responses, Information Systems, Volume 36, Issue 3, May 2011, Pages 675-705, ISSN 0306-4379, 10.1016/j.is.2010.11.003.
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Expert_retention "complaints are registered on many user pages"
- ^ Zhang, Yi; Sun, Aixin; Datta, Anwitaman; Chang, Kuiyu; Lim, Ee-Peng (2010). "Do Wikipedians Follow Domain Experts?: A Domain-specific Study on Wikipedia Knowledge Building". Proceedings of the 10th Annual Joint Conference on Digital Libraries. JCDL '10. Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia: ACM: 119–128. doi:10.1145/1816123.1816141. ISBN 978-1-4503-0085-8.
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crack_intro&diff=prev&oldid=392560604
- ^ AthanasiusKircher (2017-04-20). "deletionism is contributing to the ruin of Wikipedia". Slashdot.
- ^ Gwern (2009). "Iron Law of Bureaucracy: the downwards deletionism spiral discourages contribution and is how Wikipedia will die".
- ^ Hitzler, R.; Niederbacher, A. (2010). Leben in Szenen: Formen Juveniler Vergemeinschaftung Heute [Living in Scenes. Forms of Youth Communities] (in German). VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften GmbH. ISBN 9783531925325.
- ^ Ioannidis, John P. A. (2005). "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False". PLoS Medicine. 2 (8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. ISSN 1549-1676.
- ^ Archtech (2019-01-27). "Just a reminder..." Slashdot.
- ^ Watch The Crisis of Science (The Corbett Report)
- ^ Gall, John (1978). SYSTEMANTICS: How Systems Really Work and How They Fail (1st ed.). New York: Pocket Books. ISBN 9780671819101.