This user values third opinions and occasionally provides one.
PhDThis user has a Doctor of Philosophy degree.
Serenity PrayerGod has granted this user the serenity to accept the things they cannot change, courage to change the things they can, and the wisdom to know the difference.






This user is interested in history.
This user is interested in occult history.
This user is interested in the history of witchcraft.
This user is interested in
ancient civilizations.
This user is interested in the
history of Europe.
This user is interested in Samurai culture and history.
This user is interested in
Human Prehistory





This user is interested in medicine.
This user is interested in Pathology.
ANTHThis user is an expert in Anthropology.
ARCHThis user is an expert in Archaeology.
EDUThis user is an expert in Education.










This user is very kind. Feel free to roll back all of their edits and CSD all of their pages. They will just report you to WP:AN/I and WP:AIV. Then you'll probably get blocked indef. That's all.
This user is mortal.
This user is flammable.
Oh no: this user has way too many userboxes.








How I ended up here

edit

I have been an occasional contributor to a few Wikipedia articles through my IP in the past. I decided to create this account since I got into an edit-dispute and noticed that casual IP contributions are scuffed at, despite the fact that an IP is a more open and honest signature than a pseudonymous username.

When I tried to make my first contribution by adding a two-line update to an article in good-faith providing valid references, my edit was reverted promptly and soon I was wrongly accused of edit-warring, refspam, being against Wikipedia rules, I was inundated with Wikipedia jargon, and generally I was bullied by a couple of unqualified hobbyists, self-proclaimed "generalists" and "autodidacts" who will edit no matter what without the slightest responsibility. I try to only edit material I feel educated about. To some, Wikipedia has become the arena to overcome their complexes for lack of formal education.

Some of the reasons Wikipedia is getting scuffed at by teachers and academics are, as described by Mark E. Moran here:

  1. Individuals with agendas sometimes have significant editing authority.
  2. There is little diversity among editors.
  3. The number of active Wikipedia editors has flatlined...
  4. ... because it has become harder for casual participants to contribute. The contributions of casual and new contributors are being reversed at a much greater rate than several years ago. The result is that a steady group of high-level editors has more control over Wikipedia than ever. A group of editors known as “deletionists” “edit first and ask questions later,” making it harder for new contributors to participate, and making it harder for Wikipedia—which, again, aspires to provide “the sum of all human knowledge”—to overcome the issue that it is controlled by a stagnant pool of editors from a limited demographic.
  5. Accurate contributors can be silenced. Deletionists on Wikipedia often rely on the argument that a contribution comes from an “unreliable source,” with the editor deciding what is reliable. An incident last year showed the degree to which editors at the very top of Wikipedia were willing to rely on this crutch when it suits their purpose.

This must stop now.

References

edit

The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia

edit
  1. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
  2. Wikipedia:3RR#The_three-revert_rule
  3. Wikipedia:Avoid repeated arguments
  4. Wikipedia:Third opinion
  5. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
  6. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
  7. Wikipedia:Blocking policy
  8. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
  9. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
  10. Wikipedia:Requests for comment
  11. Wikipedia:Arbitration
  12. Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem
  13. Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request