Hi, thanks for visiting my user page. It explains my approach to editing ("Be Bold!" and Inclusionist) and lists my "pet peeves", such as "weasel wording" and "puffery".
|This user is a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians
The motto of the AIW is Conservata veritate, which translates to, "With the preserved truth".
I also believe that Wikipedia articles can have well-managed, well-sourced "In popular culture" sections.
If you are concerned about an edit that I did, I want to let you know that I follow Wikipedia's "Be Bold" editing guideline. If I come to an article, and find statements that I believe contain Original Research, misleading or biased points of view, incorrect information, or dubious and unsourced claims, I will, in some cases, remove, reword, or rephrase the content. At the same time, I know that their are clear limits to boldness (e.g., making a major change to a Good Article without discussing it on the talk page).
I would like to work together with other editors so that we can make Wikipedia into an online encylopedia that is both a reliable and useful reference source and an enjoyable read. Please send a note if you disagree with any edits.
I want to try to work out any disputes or disagreements in a calm and friendly manner, based on the rules that guide our editing on Wikipedia (e.g., the Five Pillars guidelines and the Wikipedia Manual of Style).
I believe in an inclusionist philosophy on Wikipedia. I think it is OK for an article to start from humble beginnings, and then develop. If an article starts with non-ideal sources (student newspapers,blog articles, etc), this content can act as a placeholder, as the article develops and better references are found. Sometimes, editors create just the basic framework of an article, with the intention of coming back to fill it in later, or for others to do so. An underdeveloped article is just like this house under construction. Lend a hand, don't tear it down! A building, like an article, takes time to build. Imagine if a building were constantly ripped apart at the seams during construction!
Some of my editorial "pet peeves" include:
- Weasel wording: "It is widely agreed that ZitRemedy was one of the most important and influential rock bands of the 1980s."
- Research shows that the band played as an opening act for a few tours of B-level hard rock bands in the US midwest and Northern England in 1981 and 1982, and disbanded in 1983.
- Peacock wording: "Jane Doe was a legendary and world-famous ocarina player from Rockland, Maryland"
- Show it with sourced facts, don't just make vague claims. If she was so "legendary" and "world-famous", she should have achievements, awards, and excellent published reviews in the Ocarina Player Magazine to show for it.
- "John Smith, an award-winning author..."
- Making a vague, unspecified refernce to "awards" is promo-kit fluff...merely having ANY award is not relevant! If an author's award is a $10 gift certificate awarded at the Albany Amateur Authors Reading Circle", a group of buddies who meet to chat about their writing, this is not a notable, respected award.
- Puffery: "In the 1990s, the rock band ZitRemedy shared the stage with the Rolling Stones and the Who, and worked with Sting and Diana Ross."
- "Shared the stage" is a widely used smokescreen to puff up a band. More research sometimes reveals that ZitRemedy in fact played as an unpaid warm-up act at 1 PM at a festival stage, where the Rolling Stones and the Who played at 10 PM, nine hours later. And the "worked with Sting and Diana Ross" was in fact when they were jamming onstage at a charity telethon where there were 100s of musicians and singers, and Sting and Diana Ross did a 3-minute walk-on at the end of the night!
- Fluff: "ZitRemedy's tireless touring through midwestern hotspots and their legendary stage shows have made them the go-to group for the hottie-hipster set."
- While I find fluff slightly less objectionable than puffery, since it is not attempting to deceive the reader, it is still a problem. Why? Because it doesn't really say anything useful, meaningful, or verifiable. It is the type of light, breezy writing used in promotional press kits, album cover "blurbs", or poorly-written music reviews, the opposite of the factual, neutral writing style expected in an encyclopedia.
- "The seminal 1983 "BloodDemonSplatter" EP by the legendary Albany death metal band DarkWarriors of Zerxes became a classic of the genre, which had a wide influence on the development of death metal" (no sources cited)
- The words "seminal", "legendary", and "classic" are so overused in Wikipedia music articles! I believe the word "seminal" should only be used with a source, because every fan thinks that their favorite band's debut LP is the "seminal" record in the genre...the words "legendary" and "classic" should not appear in music articles unless they are in a quote by a music critic or music journalist...every fan views their favourite performer as "legendary", and thinks that their favourite song is a "classic"! : )
- Self-promotion: "John Doe is one of the top 3-string banjo repairers in North America. Leading international banjo stars have praised the quality and beauty of his repair work. More information on how to ship your banjo to this legendary repairman, on pricing, or on services is available at John_Doe_Legendary_Banjo_Repair.czm, or at my phone number BAN-JO4U."...
- Wikipedia is not a free advertising service!
- Excessively detailed plot summaries: In some articles about action movies, some editors provide a detailed account of every scene, rather than giving an overview of the plot. Instead of getting the "big picture" (e.g., "Rambo overpowers the sentries and makes his way to the fortress"), we hear reams of detail about every weapon that is used, every shot that is fired, every clip of ammo that is loaded, every twist and turn, and about the gory demise of every anonymous ski-masked villain.