From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kraftlos is an undergraduate student at the University of Washington majoring in Journalism. While his professors tend to discount the usefulness of Wikipedia; he chooses to edit Wikipedia in both English and Spanish ([[1]]). He specially enjoys articles on controversial subjects and enjoys the practice it gives him to edit and write from a Neutral Point of View; something that he will need to be very good at once he enters his intended career. Topics of interest include: Japanese Animation and Manga, Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Nostalgia, Video Games, Spanish/Latin American topics, and Technology.
[edit] My Edit Philosophy
1. Verifiable sources: everything must be sourced. I will be merciless in questioning sources and requesting references; removing clearly wrong information. However, if something is said that seems correct and could easily be sourced, I let it stay there until sources were found unless it sticks out like a sore thumb (i.e. a recently added unsourced claim to an otherwise good article). Often leaving unsourced information on a start page gives editors an organizational framework which would be lost if all unsourced claims were removed from said article.
2. Consensus: in WP decisions, consensus rules. This is a key value of Wikipedia's philosophy. My point of view is just that: mine. Policies do not speak for themselves. They are only say anything when they are interpreted. People don't have the right to be dogmatic; all rules and policies should be enforced through consensus. Consensus is also important to deciding what will be included in an article.
3. Time: Not everyone has it. First, I refuse to live on Wikipedia. I write for a living, so as soon as WP becomes work and not a hobby, I'm done. No one should expect instantaneous responses. A week is a reasonable timeframe if planning major changes to an article. Second, everyone values their time. Don't tell other people to make edits, if you aren't willing to do it yourself. Don't demand more of others than you demand of yourself.
4. Civility: No matter what transpires, keep in mind WP:Good Faith and don't presume bias or malicious intent. Don't talk down to people, simply because someone spends more or less time on Wikipedia, or has more or less experience, doesn't give you the right to act arrogant. If you need to explain something, try to explain the concept without throwing a bunch of links in someone's face. Use links as references, not as explanations. Two people can read the same policy or guideline and get completely different ideas from it. Explanation through clear reasoning is the key to better understanding.
5. Communication: Open and clear communication equals progress, sloppy or no communication equals conflict. I will never do anything without first explaining in an edit summary, and discussion if necessary. Everyone should be prepared to explain the reasoning behind their edits.
[edit] Currently Working On
- Shadow Skill - Basically adopted this article... mah baby
- Elfen Lied - Working on making this into a half-decent article. I want to get this to GA status; it's not there yet.
- Popolocrois - A horrid series of articles that needs some serious help from someone who's played the japanese games.
- Septuagint - Actually took out books from the library and started checking up on the sources. I think the wording of the Christian and Jewish sections needs to be tweaked a bit.
- Sodom and Gomorrah - Totally misrepresents the Christian view of this subject. Someone is using this as their soapbox.
- Ravi Zacharias - Saved this article from deletion, I wish there was more to put into it. It's much better than when I found it.
[edit] Verifiability/NPOV
I thought I would keep a list of sites here that either are or are not reliable and their relevant disccusions on WP. Mainly for my quick reference, but anyone else can use the list if they want. :P
1. Religioustolerance.org - It drives me crazy when this site is used as an authority. No person of any serious religious tradition would want some secular site telling them what to believe while at the same time trying to make the same argument in different religions. Its like they're trying to speak FOR everybody rather than TO everybody.
