# User:Dchmelik

[ Wiki: about, howto, meta, tools | OWL | OED | MWD | Roget's Thesaurus 2nd ed. | Worldcat | COPAC | Merton College Library (oldest English library) | LoC | HTML: 5 , lessons | WTML ]

# This is a Wikipedia user page

Interwiki Userpages
 WikipediaUser:dchmelik (talk)
 WiktionaryUser:dchmelik (talk)
 WikiquoteUser:dchmelik (talk)
 WikibooksUser:dchmelik (talk)
 WikisourceUser:dchmelik (talk)
 WikispeciesUser:dchmelik (talk)
 WikinewsUser:dchmelik (talk)
 WikiversityUser:dchmelik (talk)
 Wikimedia CommonsUser:dchmelik (talk)
 Wikimedia IncubatorUser:dchmelik (talk)
 WikidataUser:dchmelik (talk)
 Wikimedia Meta-WikiUser:dchmelik (talk)
 MediaWikiUser:dchmelik (talk)
 This user is a member of WikiProject Law.
 This user is a member of WikiProject Education.
 This user is a member ofWikiProject Libraries.
 This user is a member ofWikiProject History.
 This user is a member ofWikiProject Politics.
 This user is a donor to the Wikimedia Foundation. You can be one, too.
 language language I use (enable JavaScript to expand userboxes)

I have been involved in computing since before Eternal September (1993; ) I edited Wikipedia in the early years and joined by 2007-1-3. I was very knowledgeable of policies and guidelines, help areas (such as on IRC and for dispute resolution,) and some Wiki tools and voting on Wikimedia projects, but want to give up on Wikimedia/Wikia. The menu at the top leads to basic information on these areas and academic writing resources.

# Wikipedia is not a reliable source

Wikipedia is not a reliable source definitely in the case that its articles can't reference its other articles, but also now generally in the academic world. BBC mentioned a study describing Wikipedia tends to be equally as accurate as, or more accurate than, top encylopedias... but Wikipedia also has more articles are altered by vandalism/blanking, people pushing non-neutral viewpoints (or being deluded they are neutral, or some version of ‘neutral’ being started to be seen out-of-date) and a large degree of conformity/groupthink/bureaucracy, and an overall viewpoint of Wikipedia itself, because of editor majority demographics, most popular sociopolitics of administrators, deletionism/etc. (and on the other hand, creation of too many irrelevant popular culture articles, often named historical terms until fixed, changed back, explained, fixed,) scandals & the [cabal], and because 90% to 95% of humans are irrational, mostly sophists & many trolls. Wikipedia used to seem helpful for various papers, such as computer-related, but now has been seen to be a poor (usually banned) source for any level academic papers on subjects such as humanities & social science, and probably all science (though may be okay place to find sources cited, to find and check, but not as good a library, best with a professional reference librarian.)
The wiki concept & Mediawiki software seem to be Wikipedia's best things, rather than some of the material, which you may find better on certain places like peer-reviewed wikis and/or other literature/wikis on particular subjects.

# my arts/science/philosophy documents

(Below, related ones I did not create are in parentheses, and I didn't create the ones describing sections)

## liberal arts/science

### general education

#### history & modernity

• of philosophy:
• Greek: Scholarch (head of any ancient/Classical Greek school)

### trivium

• grammar: some now deleted definitions in ‘hacker
• Wiktionary: other definitions of para mukti and philalethia, and two European religion definitions

## philosophy/sacred arts/sciences

### arithmology

Wikibooks: Grammar, Arithmology, And Isopsephy (given up on this and most other ‘New Age’ writing on my list)