Bias and points-of-view
A top 2000 contributer?
According to the List of Wikipedians by number of edits, as of September 5, 2016, I was the 2,894th most active editor on WP. That's rather scary, because I don't do that much. That tells me WP is continuing a downhill trend in the number of editors and contributions. A number of thoughtful, fruitful editors who I've been acquainted with, individuals who have made hundreds of thousands of edits, have been blocked or quit in disgust. I avoid contributing to many articles because I don't want to get involved in further disputes, which I've had my share of. Wikipedia is increasingly dysfunctional and arbitrary. Just recently, an article I wrote that had been around for five years got tagged by another editor because they didn't think some long-standing references were reliable sources. One of the sources was an international body founded almost 100 years ago and recognized around the world. Another was an internationally recognized researcher and author. That editor insisted I had to dispute their tags on an admin panel. What a waste of time. WP confusing litany of rules and processes and guidelines are stacked against thoughtful discourse and reasonable conclusions.
Articles I've written
|This is a Wikipedia user page.|
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at