User talk:Renamed user QaFQqK56bnsHrz

Bingo

This is a good point - [1]. It's something we need to keep in mind - certainly I need to keep in mind, because I tend to fall into a rut in which I think every little thing has to be mentioned, when in fact the connections and context are much more important, but harder to research, synthesize and write. Adding facts is easy. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

And there is a pretty good chance we will end up taking Britannica out. Ceoil (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Amen. JNW (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ya think? Maybe we've cornered the market in an area such as Netherlandish art thanks to your efforts and all the great VA editors, but Riggr's point is well-made in regards to biographies about authors. That's a weakness we have, and those are pages that are not only difficult to write but have precious few editors working on them. But hey, most of them have trivia sections - so that's something. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm agreeing with the trust of Riggr's quote, and I would say JNW was expressing the same. A lot of the project is comprised of nonesense and half understood, badly syntheised rubbish, and thats just the portion that isnt straight out copy-vio. I'm still surprised that the industries that web 2.0, or whatever its called, dont a take more proactive approach to pointing out its inherient weaknesses. Im certainly aware of them, and its sad. One of the most articulate that does is David Simon, see some of his public speaking things on youtube, they paint a very disturbing and likely future. Ceoil (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I logged back in because I thought my comment might have come across as snarky but it wasn't meant that way. Obviously I don't do sarcasm well here. We agree with each other. And Riggr has made a good point. The thought of doing Dostoyevsky on wiki? Makes me cringe. And he's one of my top favorite authors - at least top 5, maybe top 3. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries, we are all agreed if nothing else. All we really can do is better whats here, though I know its a far lonlier road in lith land than in art land. Ceoil (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was nodding at the quote from The Atlantic. Per Ceoil's comments, Wikipedia inevitably is saddled with very basic concerns and priorities. It's a miracle if it produces something artful. As a prominent journalist once wrote me "the only good piece of writing ever written by a committee was the King James Version of the Bible." Maybe. We've constructed some excellent articles in the arts, but stylistically they're almost inevitably pastiches. JNW (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me there isn't any way to avoid that, given the nature of our citation and verifiability policies and the anonymity of our contributors. Which I'm not criticising per se, but this isn't a venue which lends itself easily to well-written, insightful summaries. Traditionally, nothing in an encyclopedia should require citations, because it's intended as a general summary of a topic that is understood to be complex. Faith in the article rests on the reputation of its author and the overseeing editors. While I enjoy contributing here - as we all do - it's easy to see where the model has its shortcomings. Kafka Liz (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

And I'm doing nothing more than belaboring the obvious. But since I began here years ago the qualities of writing and research in the visual arts have improved dramatically--in large part thanks to those who are chatting here--and I'm certain that the experience helped cut my teeth before writing for publication. JNW (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

[ec] Nothing to add here (or, trying to refrain from the same old essays); but I appreciate the perspectives. I'd say the biggest tragedy of Wikipedia (oops here I go) is that, despite being such a popular web site, there isn't in general a single person on Earth (it only takes one!) who wants to go and make your favorite traditionally researched topic the best it can be. Everyone on this page has done more than their share in that regard. Riggr Mortis (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Liz, what you are talking about, in practicle terms is granfathering, ie trusting, and thats how wiki started out, but it wasnt scalable. That was a major early life trama for the project, and of course its what lead to FAR, and the painful delisting of so many great articles, of which no doubt the majority could have been easily inline cited by the orig author, but many found the practice distastful, thinking this was just another ency, but of course its not. Its a juggernot with no mind, coheriance or direction, and as thats been realised, various internal saftey nets are trying to be attached. One of em was inline cite, but evebn that is far from enough. Who know where it will land, and who it will lay to waste as it does so. Its may go the way of ask jeeves or one of thoes other earlier flavour of the months, but I doubt it. I remember being first attracted to the side on the idealism of having a central depository of "the sum of " bla bla, but the wuestion is, who controls this. The answer is, so far, those with a shit load of time on their hands. Ie the very young, the unemployable, the cranks. Ouch. We have a number of very good admins, but a reality is that that class is fighting a loosing battle against, well. Ceoil (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I think you're missing my point, though it may be that I wasn't very clear. What I am trying to say is that Wikipedia has to be different than traditional encyclopedias, given the nature of its construction. That comes with certain drawbacks, which are not insurmountable but do present challenges. I'm not arguing that what is written here ought to be taken on trust, and I believe citations are essential. But it can make for some choppy writing sometimes, in an effort to avoid too-close paraphrasing, and an overemphasis on what is easily proven. What part of what I'm saying is unclear? Kafka Liz (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Im just having a little rant for myself, dont worry. Ceoil (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Rant in E Minor? [2] Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, except it wasnt v funny. Ceoil (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That's it. Interaction ban noticeboard in 3...2... This is me listening to you. [3] (Yes, even the bed scenes.) It's not v funny either. Not everything can be funny. Is God funny? Do you laugh at God? You represent His art on Wikipedia mainly as highly subtle parody? I thought so. Would it help you empathize more with your fellow man, if I told you that at this moment I have no toilet? What's that in Southern Ireland, a loo? Biffy? Kitchen sink? Didn't the Irish perfect the art of throwing their shit into the street? Nice claim to fam(in)e. They still do it, metaphorically you say? Indeed. Riggr Mortis (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Riggr, man. All jokes aside, you need to sort youself out with a jacks. Seriously now man, I know your a bit strange, but not having a jack, well, like, thats bad. I'll hold a fund raiser with the kind hearted souls on an/i if your badly stuck. I understand eskimos are used to it, but it cant be much fun in the tundra. Now there's an interesting portrait by JNW - Rigger startled in his natural habitat, with paper. Ceoil (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ceoil, I've been trying to meet you halfway and pretend you're my friend for ages and yet the cycle of hostility continues. I like the JNW portrait idea, but "startled" and "natural habitat" are racist. You know better. I had invited you to my Eskimo Barbeque this weekend; forget it. Unless you are a least 160 lb, forget it. Riggr Mortis (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

A shame, because Ceoil shared this snapshot from the last picnic [4]. A composition worthy of Titian. You arts editors know how to live. JNW (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)