Association of Eventualist Wikipedians

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I, Orthologist, hereby estabilish the Association of Eventualist Wikipedians.

We hold that Wikipedia, a voluntarily run site, has more eventual value than immediate, and, therefore, it will definitely achieve perfection sooner or later. Our counterparts are Immediatists and Statusquoists, who focus on the immediate rather than the eventual value of Wikipedia, and tend to revert any problematic edit on sight, as well as Exclusionists, who are in favor of deleting articles or removing material of low quality, rather than keeping and improving them over time. We largely support Incrementalism, Splittism and Keepism due to the consistency of Eventualism with them. We hold that Eventualism will increase the quality and notability, as Incrementalism claims, of articles, if Keepism is put into practice and, therefore, articles shall be split due to the increased notability of their separate parts, which is the goal of Splittism.

We, therefore, conclude that Wikipedia, via the large number of its contributors, will definitely fix all problematic articles and that when it is going to reach top quality is a matter of time. We also maintain a strict opposition to reverting edits which are problematic, albeit good faith, as we hold that fixing problematic edits lets material stay in, whereas reverting may remove it for ever, or an extremely long time, which would limit the growth of Wikipedia. Thusly, we advocate reverting vandalism only.

We welcome both kinds of eventualists: absolute and optimistic. Pessimistic eventualists are also welcome, but they are encouraged to help Wikipedia by participating, and are assured that Wikipedia is not going to fail, as it can be deduced by its current quality and growth rate.

Types of Eventualists[edit]

Absolute eventualist

Ignores VfD and policy pages at all costs, and trusts that, in the end, the community will treat articles appropriately, even if they do not make the right call the first time around.

Optimistic eventualist

Occasionally tries to intervene by commenting on AfDs and policy pages, in order to try and speed up the process of reaching the right outcome eventually.

Pessimistic eventualist

Believes that Wikipedia is eventually going to fail anyway, so does not participate in any of it.

Goals[edit]

Our goals are:

  1. To resist unnecessary reverts. Only vandalism must be reverted, as other problematic edits will be fixed through time.
  2. To resist the unnecessary deleting of articles or removal of content from them if there are margins for improvement, as well as rampant Exclusionism.
  3. To bring a feeling of calmness in the Wikipedia community, by indicating that, over time, everything will be greatly improved, and that there is no need to worry.
  4. To furthermore support the Splittist movement, Incrementalism, Keepism, and Antistatusquoism, whose ideas represent the natural outcome of Eventualism.

Members[edit]

Feel free to add yourself

  1. Orthologist Everything will be corrected in due time. Relax. 19:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. (I am to get an account soon, under the name of "NotDonBuchla") NotDonBuchla 03:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. M. F. Gaede 07:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. DeSalvionjr21:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Ronja 18:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. 5ko. I believe that every editor/administrator with enough experience eventually becomes optimistic to absolute Eventualist, or walks away. 16:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Madmaxmarchhare 05:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. FML 17:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. Captain Infinity 18:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  10. Machete97
  11. Tyciol 17:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  12. Optimistic philosophy at its best! Roachgod 08:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  13. Damërung I am for sure of course definitely damn in. --20:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC-5)
  14. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  15. O'DaveY 07:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  16. Signing boldly enough for the Immediatists to read without their glasses Ink Falls 23:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  17. LeonidasSpartan
  18. Fridae'sDoom 02:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  19. Smjwalsh 07:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  20. Adavis444 06:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  21. Toby Bartels 03:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  22. Lakkasuo Time is one thing we have a lot of, so what's the rush to perfection?
  23. Greg Comlish 16:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Eventualism is the path of consensus. Immediatists are too susceptible to being manipulated by authors with ownership issues and others that improperly attempt to control content.
  24. Varnent (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC) - rare occasion where I can list myself as an optimist  :)
  25. Bleakgh (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  26. Geraldshields11 (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  27. Gloria sah (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC):"time is the better repairer"
  28. Mcnabber091 (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  29. Abattoir666 (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2014 (EST)
  30. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  31. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  32. Fastslack (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  33. innotata 16:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  34. Sjrct (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  35. Philculmer (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  36. Acad Ronin (talk)

Promotion and User box[edit]

You can use this template to announce your membership and promote this association:

Basic user box: add {{User eventualist}}, which generates

Wikipedia-logo.png

This user is a member of the Association of Eventualist Wikipedians.


Comments[edit]

Eventualists rule, Take a look :)

Feel free to comment under this paragraph. Please know that we would like to hear everyone's suggestions for our association motto or logo. Furthermore, we are seeking of experienced, computer-literate users with the ability to create appropriate userboxes and templates. If you meet the above criteria, you can help our association by fulfilling one of the above tasks.

Qualification Ratings solution?[edit]

A programming issue? Easier said than done, perhaps, but why not set up overall qualification ratings for articles, that would show up along side the article listings within respective categories within which it is contained, based upon levels of notability, unfinished state, additional references needed, etc. A reader or editor would be able to rate the article at the bottom of the page and the weighted and tallied ratings would show up next to the article within its respective categories. When viewing the article listings under respective categories, a typical reader or editor would be able to distinguish at a glance, the quality ratings of the article, prior to choosing whether to read/edit it or not. An overall rating (perhaps with much higher weights being applied to the most recent ratings) could be listed at the top of the article along with the other menu items: Article, Talk, Edit this page, History, Move, Watch, Rating=2.0, (rather than the hideous warning boxes which which deeply mar the appearance of articles), and would link to the "Ratings" page on the article, itemizing the ratings under each respective qualification. The rating number under the article's listings within its respective categories could also be linked directly to the same ratings page. The rating numbers might also be color coded, e.g., red for rating below 3.0, green above 7.5, etc. Rating votes might only be allowed for registered users to try and prevent a single user falsely entering multiple rating votes. Votes might also possibly be weighted according to the user/editor/admistrator's experience and track record. ELApro (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Pessimistic Eventualist[edit]

It's already failed. NotDonBuchla 03:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, it hasn't.--Orthologist 15:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
It will do, eventually. Ha ha, I made a funny.