 |
|
Stumbled over an article about Wikipedia from a greater mess of articles about Wikipedia. I can't quite remember how I ended up surfing there, but I wanted to note the article brings up something I discovered for myself.
Jason Scott, the article writer (and I believe an original Wikipedia programmer), states plainly that energy is wasted, and interesting nuggets of information lost due to the easy access to edit and fiddle by anyone (including those without an account, only noted by IP addy, something I had not realized). Anyone can also include those with social capital in Wikipedia itslef, (often transferred into authority as an admin). And the end result is that people stop contributing content.
In my case I felt confused, crushed, angry and then walked away from an article that no one else had bothered to create; but where people felt it was suddenly necessary to rephrase my sentences and paragraphs, and correct my very British spelling as typos or mistakes. Then came others re-organizing the information I and someone else had hunted down.
A tv show is small potatoes compared to what else Wikipedia does and what I found out goes on with clashing philosophies or political points of view from climate change, to whether or not certain governors of certain tropical states have behaved continuously in a racist manner or have somehow earned themselves an out. But if something as small as a tv show had to be bullied about and contested and information re-arranged and sentences cut and the u's cut out because American spelling must dominate - how much more frustrating is it when it's experts in their fields being hand spanked and scolded by non-experts because there's a Wikipedia way and everything else. (And some of what I've found in my surfing has mentioned that Wikipedia cultivates an anti-elitism atmosphere with a distinct anti-respect towards experts.)
I still remember going to stare at my article, so happy I could contribute something about a tv show I'd loved and discovering that someone had marked it for deletion because I'd included either a screen shot or some official art I'd found. Apparently a screen shot isn't fair use, or something, if the fair use information is not laid out in a particular way or something else. It's all a blur of - but did they have to mark the WHOLE thing for deletion?
That dimmed the joy of one of the producers of the show finding the article and contacting me to correct info. That dimmed the joy of finding another fan interested in maintaining the page. The knowledge that someone could decide what I'd hunted down and spent hours researching and confirming could be deleted just like that. Yes, I'd saved the file, but still.
I did my best to sort it all out, but when it was over, it took about a year for me to look at the page again, and then I discovered even more sentence changes and rephrasing and words completely removed; my vocabulary erased. Looking at the site right now, I recognize nothing but some of the information. There's been things introduced that leave me shaking my head, especially considering how often I got smacked for not showing secondary sources.
That's how often a small potatoes page on Wikipedia gets edited.
That's how often even on a small potatoes page, editor favouritism happens.
I think I would have been better off putting up a fan page. And maybe if the initial wrestling on Wikipedia hadn't worn me out, I might have done. Maybe I still might, sometime in the future, when my show is no longer associated for me, with twitching disappointment.
That said, I'm thinking I might try Thesaurus.com for it bit. Or Britannia. And TV Tropes for my media needs.
3 Comments | Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
 |
|
100 Things Restaurant Staffers Should Never Do; Parts 1 & 2
I read it all the way through and suddenly realized why as a child eating out in America confused me so much (because things were so different) and why I get so easily irked when I go out to eat now.
Here I was attributing it to me being anti-social.
'Are you still working on that?' - *grits teeth* Why are you calling the meal or the experience of eating it WORK?
And the constant hovering and pouring water that some people think is good service but which just makes my stomach tense up and cramp because there's no moment to relax without someone in your face all the time. I find nothing wrong with going out and treating myself to dinner, PLEASE PLEASE do not think, dear servers, that I need company and you're doing me a favour stopping by every five to seven minutes. I'm either reading, or enjoying the view and meal.
What's most revealing to me is the comments. People insisting they can never eat or work in a restaurant owned by the person who compiled the list because there are too many rules. People insisting that someone who has all their rules must be underpaying their staff, or that they're expecting a lot of work and formality out of minimum wage staff. As if how much you get paid to do a thing, dictates whether or not you do it well and properly.
Then there's the people who're all 'You'll go out of business if you give away recipes'
And the people who think the rules are obnoxious.
And the person who called it 'early 20th Century British servant manners' - as an INSULT.
And the people who can't tell the difference between telling a customer about dishes without stating which dishes are their favourite. I mean I only give a damn about the waiter's favourite dish if I'm trying to decide something and they say 'I'm a total chocoholic and I really like x'. In which cause I immediately know it's likely to be too rich for my tastebuds.
I finally found a comment that cements to me the general consensus of the 'WTF comments'
101. A Waiter will never, by word or sign, indicate that he or she believes he is a human being of equal worth as the patrons of the restaurant. When the Waiter accepts a check signed by the restaurant owner/manager, that proves he or she is inferior.
102. A Waiter will never, when off duty, off the restaurant premises, or anywhere else, act in a manner unbecoming to the restaurant. The Waiter is an ambassador for the restaurant and is at all time responsible to the restaurant for his or her behavior. The Waiter is permanently the property of the restaurant. So being quietly respectful, not presenting oneself as a diner's new best friend, allowing people to eat in peace and trying to be attentive to their needs is .... wage slavery? And then the US claims that it is a service oriented economy? And I find myself pondering the whole Sir, Ma'am, Miss thing. Though I'm not sure people say 'Miss' in the US. But the whole thing about Sir & Ma'am being cracks on age and not terms of respect? WTF? I know I've never felt more comfortable - unexpectedly comfortable- than when first visiting my step-family in Georgia and suddenly all the manners that got me labeled 'kiss up' etc in NYC, were just plain accepted. ETA: Geeze people. A waiter doesn't have to hover in order to be attentive and not seem to disappear when a guest/customer needs them. They can be at the front or the back of the dining area, visible when not attending other tables. It's not rocket science people! ETA2: Zvi was the one who clued me on minimum wage and how important tips were financially to American waitstaff. I grew up where tips were a bonus for good service. Given my reaction in general to American waitstaff service - I previously was not leaving any tips. Zvi still seems to me, to find not leaving a tip to be rude. But it's ingrained in me, deeply, not to pay for service I did not find desirable. And I'm ecstatic when service is such, I don't have to remember 'well, they probably don't get paid much and Zvi said it is helpful to the working stiff so I should give -something-'
10 Comments | Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
Is it me? or is Publisher's Weekly soundly putting their foot up it, right until it comes out of their arse when it comes to ignoring or bad talking female writers and readers and female centric genres?
They just got trounced on their 'best of' and now sucktastic title on a feature interview. Someone is snorting some extra strong powdered stereotypes over there.
Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
 |
|
I feel mean, or rather I was feeling mean. When I heard about the newly married couple stranded in Germany because Expedia.com told them they wouldn't need visas for Russia; I couldn't help pondering Americans and international travel and lack of awareness. I just couldn't. I've been traveling since I was a baby and there's a hard edge of privilege there of 'How could you not double check that???!'. It's possibly also blended with "America is Not Rome!" and also "Are you a Commonwealth citizen? No. Is Russia a Commonwealth nation? No. Then WTF?"
But I felt much less mean when I heard that once the whole hullabaloo fermented, Expedia compounded matters by not switching their tickets over to any other destination, refusing them emergency visa assistance that was within their power to do and only paying a third of their overnight hotel stay while things were sorted out.
So many thoughts in my head, chief of which is 'always get a name'. It can be difficult to remember, I know, because for many things it won't much matter. But someone stating in an authoritative manner their expertise on a subject where you know nothing - demands writing down a name and the time and date of the call.
The other thought in my head the more I thought about things? Expedia's greed. Booking a flight to a country that requires a visa, without knowing whether or not the customers have the visa and then making that booking nonrefundable? That's not customer service. That's a con game.
Somehow or the other business practices have forgotten the concept of the repeat loyal customer and just go for "fleece 'em while they're standing still" as if the customer base is so huge, the market so big, that it doesn't matter how many people they piss off and cheat, there are more newbies waiting in the wings. This business practice seems even more irrational to me in this age of iPhone, Twitter, Facebook & Blogs. A company's name can get out there, and gain a disreputable notoriety in a matter of hours, given the right organized base. Who is actually big enough to withstand that? I mean if even Amazon went "Oh crap, we just shot ourselves in the foot with a lavender gun"; Can Expedia really afford to have twenty-somethings associating them with horrible trips, international abandonment & strandedness and mean officials who make brides cry?
Really?
That's their marketing plan?
ETA: My mother just mentioned how in countries outside of the US, one can't even get a ticket bought (to the US) without proof of a US Visa.
17 Comments | Post A Comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
|
|
|
|
|