GustavoHime

⇔	Este usuário traduz artigos do Inglês para Português em Wikipedia:Tradução.

⇔	Este usuário traduz artigos do Francês para Português em Wikipedia:Tradução.

⇔	Este usuário traduz artigos do Alemão para Português em Wikipedia:Tradução.

Por que eu decidi contribuir para a Wikipedia?

Essa é fácil. O mesmo motivo que todo mundo: é gratuita, é abrangente, é compartilhada. Eu quero boa informação acessível para todos, e não tenho o ímpeto de fazer uma página especializada (minha, toda minha!!!). É muito mais divertido, descompromissado e enriquecedor colaborar por aqui. A wikipedia está sempre no topo da lista quando eu busco o que quer que seja na Internet. Nem sempre é suficiente ou fiável, mas vale a pena checar.

Mas... logo que comecei eu esbarrei no motivo que por tanto tempo manteve-me hesitante em dedicar qualquer fração do meu tempo a esta atividade. Ao cortar um artigo excessivamente longo sobre um livro na Wiki em inglês, esbarrei em alguém cujas motivações para "colaborar" diferem bastante das minhas. Reproduzo a discussão que tive com o indivíduo em questão, pois acho que os argumentos que expus nela são muito importantes, e se eles são apenas um eco reforçado daquilo que já está consagrado nas diretrizes de edição, então não tira pedaço dizer amém:

[página de discussão de algum livro...]

I just came across this humongous page while checking the cross-referencing for the article for Lem in portuguese, and I couldn´t help cleaning it up. I´m sorry for the guy who wrote the huge summary, he probably loved the book, but this is completely off for wikipedia. GustavoHime (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

And sure enough, someone reverted the change. All in the best wikipedia interest. Someone who didn´t see good articles on books, most likely. Sad. GustavoHime (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see how the interest of improving the article was served by gutting large sections of it, and replacing it with a rather rudimentary book-report which uses rather idiosyncratic language, such as "Rip Van Winkle´s" employed as a third person singular present-tense finite verb form! Why not try for incremental improvements first? ???? (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear reviewer. I don´t see how the interest of wikipedia is served by providing readers with a four page long abridged version of a book, full of subjective, passionate, emotional, partial and opinionated comments, lacking structure, cohesion and uniformity in its narrative and in correspondence with the book in question, with the rest of the author´s work and with the related works of fiction, instead of a very short, concise and encyclopaediac summary (and the use of encyclopaedia in the adjectified form, and the use of adjective in the adjectified form, are both intentional).

I would like to believe that the reviewer has actually read not only this book, but is truly an expert in fiction literature, science fiction in particular, and that he has an extensive record of reviewing articles on the matter. I find it odd that a certified reviewer is oblivious of the meaning of the word summary, as I find the use of the aggressive tone in the above commentary ("gutting large sections" "rather rudimentary", and the exclamation point). Most odd of all is the reviewer´s apparent revolt with the use of Rip Van Winkle as a verb, which is something I actually took from a reference and is quite common place, due to the pervasive use of the tale as starting point for fiction, and in accordance with the tone of the book in question and the work of the author as well. Surely the work of Lem does not use a rather rudimentary language.

I would point out that wikipedia is NOT served by adding whatever one feels like, but in many cases reducing an article (drastically, yes) is a major improvement, because it makes room for new, more thought through additions. If this article is properly cut down, then missing information will eventually be added. If it is not added, it is because it was not supposed to be there to begin with. This article in particular is so pathetic that it is impossible to improve it without starting over - unless the reviewer means by "incremental improvements" the **addition** of new material. The reviewer seems to be of the opinion that quantity is the same as quality, much like the users who made it this way to begin with. And he is probably right, given his long time record reviewing the wikipedia shows that lots of quantity in contribution provided him with prestige and recognition enough to award him reviewer status. In my (not humble) opinion, too bad, too sad. This is what earns wikipedia its ambivalent reputation of questionable quality - to which I concur, and why I have refrained from contributing in the past, and have decided to do so on a sparingly basis. Thank you for the edifying lesson.