A few words from Pyxis (from her inner cranky):
How many total edits have I made to Wikipedia? Who cares. What rank I am as an active editor? So what.
I'm only here for the purpose of providing information in this webopedia for a public in search of it. I don't seek recognition for it. I don't run with any crowd. I've never been interested in medals and awards (I didn't go to my high school prom and graduation ceremony; nor did I stand in line to receive my B.A.) I wasn't raised to have an ego so fragile that decorating this page with I'm-so-special attention getters like "Master Editor Class B.F.D." et al., is a goal. [But when I get a "Thank you" out of the blue from someone now and then ... well ... hot damn.] Wikipedians who collapse-tag their egoboos and virtually hide them know what the priorities are.
There are good Wikipedia editors — and there are asshole Wikipedia editors. If you're here long enough you'll eventually deal with the latter. Remember their names because they are arrogant, pretentious, F.O.S. toxic viruses enthralled with self-importance. You'll also deal with editors who will drop by articles and leave comments in their talk pages telling the rest of us what said articles need and/or how to improve them — but they, themselves, can't be bothered to do it. The ones who "create" pages by merely giving them a title, one sentence, and stub infobox, then don't contribute anything towards their development but pound their chests about how many articles they've created are edit count whores. And of course, there are those editors whose coco is totally nuts (whatever you do ... don't be a schmuck enabler).
Many editors are commended for making X edits, selected as editor of the week, invited to become reviewers, awarded barnstars, and congratulated for simply engaging in their Wikipedia hobby ... but many of these same editors are known to screw up the content of articles by editors more familiar with said articles and their edits are questioned, but they get away with their blunders and disruptive edits because the backslappers are oblivious. The moral of this story is: don't buy the fawning b.s. that too many editors are showered with. A lot of people get their rocks off giving kudos as much as others get their rocks off receiving them.
Bottom line for every, single Wikipedia editor: (1) The sun will rise and the sun will set whether I or any other editor continues editing this come one, come all, user-generated "encyclopedia" ... or stops altogether; (2) Get a grip on reality — life on Wikipedia goes on with or without you. Whatever you think you see when you look in the mirror, in here you're a total stranger; anonymous even with an invented name and invisible to everyone except yourself (and if you're idiotic enough to reveal who you really are, you'll deserve all the crazies who find the road map to your front door). So .........
|
Articles[edit]
Nominated for Good Article:
- Carol (
Passed : 7 August 2017)
Stupendous updates & expansion:
(to name only a few, because I'm modest)
- + • Accolades
- + • Soundtrack
- + • Carol Wikiquote
- + • List of Lost Girl characters
- + • List of Lost Girl episodes
- + • individual Season articles
Created:
- Anchor and Hope
- List of Cold Squad episodes
- List of The Tunnel episodes
- List of Wynonna Earp episodes
- Lost Girl (season 5)
- LUMIERE
- Number 9 Films
- Category:Number 9 Films films
- Category:Films produced by Elizabeth Karlsen
Re-created:
Stuff[edit]
Wikipedia editors are a dying breed. The reason? Mobile, The Guardian, 2015.
Wikipedia's Hostility to Women, The Atlantic, 2015.
Why Do So Few Women Edit Wikipedia?, Harvard Business Review, 2016.
Why we need to close Wikipedia's gender page gap, The Telegraph, 2018.
Women are launching a Wikipedia food fight against male-heavy cookery content, The Big Issue, 2018.
Inside the Fight to Change Wikipedia's Gender Problem. Inverse, 2018.