User:Zad68

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
⚕ This user is a member of WikiProject Medicine.
he/him This user is male; please refer to him with masculine gender pronouns.
Crystal Clear action run.svg
(contribs)
This user runs a bot, ZadBot. It performs tasks that are extremely tedious to do manually.
Million award logo.svg This user won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Low back pain to Good Article status.
Million award logo.svg This user won the Million Award for bringing Circumcision to Good Article status.
Pengreen1.gif This user likes to turn
Wikipedia Green



Severe backlog There are 2690 pending AfC submissions.

I wonder why in Greece experts contend in the games and non-experts award the prizes.

— Anacharsis of Scythia (c. 590 BCE)


Hello, I am Zad68, but please feel free to call me Zach. I am a volunteer Wikipedia editor just like you are (or could be!). I am particularly interested in medical topics, and I am an active member of Wikipedia's Medicine Wikiproject. I also like to edit or review articles in the natural sciences, and occasionally attend to the odd biography, especially if the person relates to an article I am working on.

I think the good article review process is one of the most important initiatives on Wikipedia. I have messed around with developing a bot using the account ZadBot, and plan to develop a bot to provide tools to automate the more tedious parts of doing reviews of WP:MED-scope articles in particular.

If you have any questions about things like sourcing for medical articles, the GA process, or just getting started with Wikipedia, please drop me a note on my User Talk page and I'll try to help!

Quick reference for some of my common edit summary abbreviations[edit]

  • r = reply
  • c = comment
  • c/e = copyedit

Zad68's Rules of Content[edit]

  • The best defense against bad content is good content. In fact it's probably the only defense.
  • The Wikipedia Catch-22: You'll do your best content work on articles for subjects you know little about and don't particularly care about. But then, of course, you won't be particularly motivated to work on such articles.
  • Any edit that adds biomedical information and explicitly points out it's based on a "scientific study published in peer-reviewed journal" probably needs to be reverted per WP:MEDRS.
  • You don't have to respect the subject of the article you're working on, but you do have to respect the sources.
  • This is why I find In popular culture sections problematic.
  • This is just one reason why we should almost never be citing primary sources for scientific information.

Focus[edit]

Improving Wikipedia's important articles

I found this essay and the accompanying slide show to be very influential in the choices I make of articles I'd like to do significant development work on. Wikipedia has a lot of articles, but overall the most important articles (as determined by the number of views) do not get as much development attention as they deserve. At over 12 years old, en.WP has over 4 million articles; just about all the articles that are on what might be considered core encyclopedic topics have already been started, but most are still not yet at GA quality. Editors should be motivated to work on the articles for these core topics, and I hope efforts like the Million Award will be effective in doing so.

A Cochrane a day[edit]

The Cochrane Library is a very well-respected publisher and repository of high-quality secondary sources of medical evidence. Wikipedia has partnered with them to provide free access to the full texts of their articles, and as of September 2013 is still handing out free accounts to editors active in developing WP:MEDICINE-content—see WP:COCHRANE to apply for your own free account! I got an account and to make sure Wikipedia benefits from it, I am trying to do a Cochrane a day: whatever other content work I might be doing, each weekday I will pull a Cochrane article and update something with it. An article will benefit, I'll learn something new, and maybe I'll get ideas for future content work. Should be fun!

OK I have to admit these are good...[edit]

Stuff to do[edit]

What's going on at WP:MEDICINE[edit]

Articles for deletion
Proposed deletions
Categories for discussion
Templates for discussion
Featured article candidates
Good article nominees
Good article reassessments
Requests for comments
Peer reviews
Requested moves

Barnstars...[edit]