I'm more of a fiddler and corrector than an originator. I also like to categorise. I organised Category:Religion into subcats and occasionally maintain it.
- Don't add what you know. Add what you can source.
- Don't attempt to improve Wikipedia if everyone else disagrees with you about it.
- Don't be a locus of drama.
I believe that neutrality is better served by editors proclaiming their opinions up-front rather than pretending that they become "neutral" the moment they start editing.
My intention is not to bias articles by misrepresenting the evidence, rather, these are ideas that seem true to me to varying degrees of certainty given the evidence available, but for some reason are not always widely held among the editing community. My concern is only for the truth.
(in no particular order)
- Israeli-Palestinian conflict: I support a binational solution as the only just solution. I am inspired by Martin Buber in this regard. An ethnically-constituted state cannot be defended on liberal grounds, either Israel or the old South Africa. Actually I'm not against a two-state solution, but both states should be secular and non-ethnically constituted, even as they are created for the different nations. My position is close to that of Jewish Voice for Peace.
- Genital integrity: I support this. Infant genital mutilation is a bizarre cultural practice that just happens to be a (hopefully fading) norm for boys in the United States.
- Diet: I suspect the Palaeolithic diet is the healthiest, at least if part of a Palaeolithic life-style that includes a lot of aerobic exercise. Like Brillat-Savarin, I suspect carbs make you fat I think because they're less satisfying for the same number of calories than protein.
- Christianity: There's something a bit silly about any religion that insists that everyone who doesn't follow it will suffer eternally in hell. Of course, not all Christians believe that.
- Wikipedia: Wikipedia is largely poorly written. However, if the Encyclopaedia Britannica is the gold standard of encyclopaedias, then Wikipedia clearly cannot be denied from qualifying as an encyclopaedia on the basis of accuracy and in my view isn't denied on any other basis. Oddly, before this study was done, I would have estimated Wikipedia to have around a thousand times more errors than Britannica. I'm not greatly surprised by the revealed error rate of the former, but I am surprised by that of the latter given the degree of respect it is accorded.
- I suppose Britannica is like a public bathroom where the graffiti is carved into the walls rather than pencilled.
- Who I would vote for: Liberal Democrats (UK — and have), Alliance Party of Northern Ireland, Free Democratic Party (Germany), Balad (Israel). There isn't a good liberal party in the US, so I usually default to the Democratic Party (United States).
Categories that shouldn't be created
- While Wikipedia has many articles about both crack addicts and complete tossers, actually pointing this out is, sadly, a violation of WP:BLP.
- Category:People suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder
- Category:Organisations that secretly run the world
- Category:Categories that are not members of themselves
- Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback, for instance.
- A number of Wikipedians have "contributed" to the project by uploading various pictures of themselves that have ended up in MediaWiki:Bad image list.
- Actually, it's OK to create this, provided you complain about the previous deletion as out-of-process in your edit summary, and don't mind it being deleted again.
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tony Sidaway, for instance.
Currently amused by Wikipedia:Unusual articles.
—Ashley Y 07:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
07:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
07:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)~
07:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)~~