THC Science

I am a Wikipedia editor who does a lot of janitorial work for the project; you are most likely to find me adding sources to articles; correcting multitudes of errors and ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole.

A&M

For months I have been involved in working on and improving Anime and Manga related articles, the associated Wikiproject A&M has become a burden on the whole of the topic. Many good editors do not engage with their dramatics. What started as a simple GA review at Ghost in the Shell turned into a protracted battle of sorts with the Wikiproject and its members, who in my opinion, have radically departed from Wikipedia's policies to forge a WP:localconsensus and actively prevent improvement of articles in adherence to that local consensus. Among the issues are core policies and guidelines, including those who believe that topics must have Angelo-centric notability and not native or Japanese notability for inclusion.[1] This misunderstanding, which cannot be cleared up even after pointing to the policy and debating it for days, showing how deep the problems go. A&M's MOS was used for years to remove entire articles without AFD or merger, including those with the most notability, like Dragon Ball Z. Thankfully an RFC overturned this,[2] but members continue to consider it still applicable. Some of A&M's key problems can be summed up by the quick-fail of the Castle of Cagliostro GA which followed A&M's "no redundancy" which prevents even key context or cast characters from being included in articles.[3][4] These issues were considered "fundamental", and A&M's problems are indeed "fundamental".

No Wikiproject or editor owns a page, and A&M's current state is held up by a small, but active group of editors who seem to been lead astray by good intentions. For over 5 months these issues have continued, even when dozens of outside editors bring their inputs, the more vocal I have been the more vocal they have been, until the comments of other editors have been lost in the ensuing mess. I value the comments of each editor, and resolving the core disagreement requires either extensive and individualized lessons to those that consider me an "enemy" and the discussion as a battle to be won or lost. When the reader's comprehension of a subject become secondary or are hindered by some interpretation of policy, the policy and the individual have failed. Common sense has taken its leave in many aspects of Wikipedia, like placing the opinion of a fan and academic scholar at the same level. If identified, one can make an argument for Randy, but given the complexity and esoteric subject matter, it is sometimes easier to contest under the Heymann Standard and lead by example and contributions. Going forward in this area and ignoring detractors may be questionable, because this doesn't appear to be working towards consensus, but after many months of trying to inform, educate and debate the merits only to receive constant attacks, including that I am writing my "thesis" on the matter. If something meets N or GNG, it should have an article. Making such a page is not a WP:CFORK violation and an international bestseller goes much to prove that notability, stating that, "There's nothing that makes them special other than the pedestals they have been put on." is not a valid argument to remove that page.[5] I've tried to work with these editors, but if I cannot convince them, than I will show them by improving the content and not engaging in meaningless discussions that serve to distract and detract from the valuable contributions that could be made.

Thankfully, outside groups see A&M's problems and the end of the local consensus may be coming in the form of increased scrutiny. It falls to everyone who shares the desire for quality to go above and beyond the limitations of A&M. The medium is not "over represented" or mere "popular culture". Academics have written thoughtful and thought-provoking discussions for half a century on the subject. It does not matter whether or not the common consumer places immediate value in application of Donna Haraway's A Cyborg Manifesto to Ghost in the Shell, but this critical response to such a work has been noted in numerous journals, books and become the focus of discourse on the subject because it provides context and an answer to the philosophical questions the work raises. Dani Cavallaro's work in this field have resulted in great analysis of anime and adaptations; including an entire book dedicated to Anime and the Visual Novel. Susan J. Napier also makes great strides into the medium, much like Helen McCarthy and Jonathan Clements. The Japanese, fittingly, have a much deeper grasp with numerous critical publications released each year. Morikawa Kaichirō's otaku essay was a good read, but Machiyama Tomohiro's Otaku no Hon offers a unique and contemporary look into budding subculture that is still important for academia to this day. Wikipedia's coverage of anime and manga is suffering, but where there is a will, there is a way. It is by improving the collective whole that the Wikiproject can regain its lost members and return to prominence. If even a handful of the detractors were to join and contribute to the realization of Wikipedia's vision the result would be better dissemination of important information. Information which leads to the appreciation of understanding of any topic. Until such a time, I will continue to improve as best I can. Even if it is alone.