Rectangles about Nat
Am I important? I'll have you know that I'm an editor at Wikipedia!
I don't tend to add substantial new information to pages. Generally, I correct errors, reword for clarity, note where the source cited doesn't actually state the claim made, add things missing from lists... those sort of little polishes. I'm most frequently found on comics and same-sex marriage topics, and post under my own name so that no one can accuse me of hiding a conflict of interest (a conflict I try to avoid, although I couldn't resist adding an info box to Mister U.S..) On the rare occasions when I start new pages, it's generally quite stubby -- my motivation is not "I know a lot about this", but "this is really something that should have a page"; my hope is that more knowledgeable folks will find the stub and fertilize it. Stubs I've created so far:
- Jack Hamm
- Geoffrey Farrow
- Oreo Collins
- God hates figs
- John Smid
- Gathering Storm (advertisement) (which gets an asterisk because it was formed primarily from text excised from another article, text writ primarily by others)
- J.T. Ready
- Brad Rader
- Chris Samnee
- and I am theoretically working on User:NatGertler/marriage to install in one of the same-sex marriage articles, and User:NatGertler/GoogleCount and User:NatGertler/BLPSimpsons as essays.
Here's the guy I'd like to nominate as the patron saint of Wikipedia editors: "...Philitas studied false arguments and erroneous word-usage so intensely that he wasted away and starved to death..."
Do Something. If it works, do more of it. If it doesn't, do something else.—Franklin D. Roosevelt
My Peanuts COI
In the past, I have edited articles having to do with the comic strip Peanuts, and there may have been times when such editing approached conflict of interest. Now that I have worked on published licensed Peanuts product (as author of the book The Peanuts Collection and writer on the Peanuts comic book), I feel that there would be an appearance of conflict if I were to do any further editing. As such, I am now leaving suggestions on the talk pages of the articles, rather than editing directly, except for undoing sheer vandalism.
Wikipedia: Do not turn Wikipedia into Strip Wikipedia
The game of Nomic is primarily designed as a set of rules in which players can change the rules of the game, including the conditions for winning. It is an article of faith among the Nomic community that a game of Nomic is never more than three good rule changes away from becoming Strip Nomic.
In many ways, Wikipedia is like Nomic. While it is not at heart (originally) a game, it is nonetheless built around a system of policies that include within themselves the ability to change those policies. As such, it may be tempting for some editors to attempt to modify policy with the goal of turning Wikipedia into Strip Wikipedia. For a variety of reasons, this is not a good idea, and should not be pursued, in much the same way as one should not try to put beans up one's own nose; the sense of achievement that one might obtain would be dwarfed by the negative effects.
The page which I feel justifies the existence of Wikipedia all by itself...
...is this one.