User talk:CommonKnowledgeCreator

CONSIDERING RETIREMENT

CommonKnowledgeCreator is considering retirement, although nothing is set in stone...

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 2.

CommonKnowledgeCreator is currently feeling discouraged about Wikipedia and is taking an off-and-on wikibreak due to loss of motivation.

Your help in cheering this user up would be appreciated.
They will return when their wikistress has dissipated and their confidence in the wikicommunity has been restored.

Wikipedia is run by a group of longtime editors who effectively assert ownership over the project by abusing the consensus policy to prevent any change to other policies, guidelines, and norms that are at least in need of reform. Since this effectively requires editors who wish to edit to be subjected to rules that are not functional and that they have no ability to change, there does not appear to be much of a reason to continue to participate in this project.
Also, many longtime editors also feel no need to cite policies or guidelines in edit summaries when they revert your contributions or contest them on talk pages—despite supposed community norms for determining consensus through discussions and editing and the recommended practices of other supplemental project pages to do so—while other longtime editors abuse the non-bureaucracy policy to take a broader interpretation of policies than what the letter of the policies suggest the larger principles of the policies actually are—despite the fifth pillar of the project and the editing policy's requirement to preserve content unless it truly cannot be fixed—which both strongly suggest that your contributions are not valued just because some longtime editors don't like them.
Besides, research on digital divides has shown that greater equality of internet access has not reduced knowledge divides, so continuing to participate in a project to give free access to the sum of all human knowledge must not be a worthwhile use of time (if it ever was).

This user is in school.

This user is taking a wikibreak and may be away or inactive for varying periods of time.
Although they may occasionally be able to do some editing, messages left for them may not be replied to for a while.
They will be back on Wikipedia when school is over.

== Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ==

Asking for Thoughts on an Article

Hello. I was wondering if you could give me your thoughts on the article that I'm setting up, Endorsements in the 1976 Democratic presidential primaries. I'm experimenting with the Endorsement Boxes, specifically in the Jimmy Carter section at the moment; I wanted to see how the lists would be like broken into smaller lists specific to their area, when they were in columns of different widths, and if I had a Box within a Box (for Former Office-holders). I don't want to proceed any farther with the Article until a format is decided given, if I were to go and adopt any of the changes, I'd have to convert everything additional. Ariostos (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate that you think highly enough of my opinion to ask, I don't know nearly enough about Wikipedia formatting to provide much input. Apologies. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give up

I've felt discouraged from editing Wikipedia as well but always come back after some time away. Don't give up and stay in the fight! BootsED (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia

I'd be very interested in having you skim the Wikipedia:Editing policy and comparing the modern version against one of the earlier versions (maybe this 2008 one?), and telling me what you think of the differences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you interested in what I think about the differences? What differences do you want my opinion about? The current revision has a larger word count than the older revision, but it's still only 1,539 words. Even if reading at 200 words per minute, it would take a reader less than 10 minutes to read it. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there's some redundancy with other policies, but I don't have a wide-angle lens of the whole of P&G and their supplements to have a sense of whether content from the page should be removed or retained. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the style of the two differs. The old one was more optimistic. It acknowledged that people would post unsourced stubs, but it saw the potential in them: If we worked together, something that started off like this could end up looking like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to why there would be a shift in the tone, and I didn't notice one. Perhaps there was more of a reason to be optimistic about Wikipedia in 2008 than there is in 2025. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Idea

Have you considered becoming an UncommonKnowledgeCreator? Polygnotus (talk) 09:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't because I don't know what an "UncommonKnowledgeCreator" is or how to become one. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, a "CommonKnowledgeCreator" is someone who creates either common knowledge or common knowledge (both of which are arguably within the educational purpose of Wikipedia since the latter is a consequence of voter education), while an "UncommonKnowledgeCreator" is someone who either creates original research or thought or interviews persons who do, and thereby creates content not permissible on Wikipedia while remaining a "CommonKnowledgeCreator" if doing the latter (strictly speaking). :) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]