Iacobus is a regular user of Wikipedia, and a casual contributor since September 2005.
Read these thoughts and you might understand a little more about Wikipedia and how to use it.
Wikipedia contributors should rely on published sources. Way too many articles are either straight dumps of Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 text, or they rely on other web sources of unkown quality. Try reading a book, or chasing up published information over the internet. Discovery Channel or someone's pet theory web site just don't cut it.
Don't reference primary historical sources in Wikipedia articles unless you are quoting. Primary sources need interpretation. Lots of qualified historians have published those interpretations. If you rely on primary sources, you are either naively taking at face value things that historians have found a need to interpret, or you are doing that interpretation, which is not what Wikipedia is for. More than likely, people quote primary sources but are actually relying on secondary sources for their interpretations. Cite the secondary sources.
Copyright paranoia means that the quality of images on Wikipedia is generally poor. It is embarassing to read articles of living persons and have only fan snapshots at public events to illustrate them. I hate copyright paranoia!
As a related grumble, why do so many Wikipedia articles on historical persons have anachronistic images of those persons or events from centuries (even millenia) later. If you can't find an image of a tenth century French king, then don't insert an image from a nineteenth century history book!
There are many Wikipedia articles that are not very clear unless you have training, or have read widely, in the relevant field. This is a problem with Wikipedia: those with knowledge (and probably enthusiasm) in a particular field will probably write an article, but they may not be able to explain it to someone with no particular knowledge in that field. I have found that this applies to articles on technology, science, and even history! The opening paragraphs of such articles must be written to be intelligible to any informed "layman." Technical issues can be reserved for later in the article, or even left out altogether. Some historical articles insist on using names unfamiliar to the English reader, instead using names and terms appropriate for another language (see, for expample, the great naming debate on the Kings of Scotland). Users of Wikipedia should only be expected to be fluent in the English language, and names and terms should be those commonly used in English. See also Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible
I've been reading a lot in the media about the slowdown in Wikipedia's growth, and some associated comments from occassional editors who feel excluded because their work gets reverted or deleted. I have no doubt that there is some exlusivity growing in the Wikipedia community. I am, at best, a casual contributor - only as time allows. Yet I have not felt the cold winds of edit reversion as some have.
My hints for a happy experience:
Articles I have created.
Articles I have expanded or to which I have made significant contributions.
A selection of other contributions.
I've just discovered Librarything. Nice toy! See my User Page
Locations I have visited in my travels, and memorable things I found there.
Iacobus is a regular user of Wikipedia, and a casual contributor since September 2005.
Read these thoughts and you might understand a little more about Wikipedia and how to use it.
Wikipedia contributors should rely on published sources. Way too many articles are either straight dumps of Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 text, or they rely on other web sources of unkown quality. Try reading a book, or chasing up published information over the internet. Discovery Channel or someone's pet theory web site just don't cut it.
Don't reference primary historical sources in Wikipedia articles unless you are quoting. Primary sources need interpretation. Lots of qualified historians have published those interpretations. If you rely on primary sources, you are either naively taking at face value things that historians have found a need to interpret, or you are doing that interpretation, which is not what Wikipedia is for. More than likely, people quote primary sources but are actually relying on secondary sources for their interpretations. Cite the secondary sources.
Copyright paranoia means that the quality of images on Wikipedia is generally poor. It is embarassing to read articles of living persons and have only fan snapshots at public events to illustrate them. I hate copyright paranoia!
As a related grumble, why do so many Wikipedia articles on historical persons have anachronistic images of those persons or events from centuries (even millenia) later. If you can't find an image of a tenth century French king, then don't insert an image from a nineteenth century history book!
There are many Wikipedia articles that are not very clear unless you have training, or have read widely, in the relevant field. This is a problem with Wikipedia: those with knowledge (and probably enthusiasm) in a particular field will probably write an article, but they may not be able to explain it to someone with no particular knowledge in that field. I have found that this applies to articles on technology, science, and even history! The opening paragraphs of such articles must be written to be intelligible to any informed "layman." Technical issues can be reserved for later in the article, or even left out altogether. Some historical articles insist on using names unfamiliar to the English reader, instead using names and terms appropriate for another language (see, for expample, the great naming debate on the Kings of Scotland). Users of Wikipedia should only be expected to be fluent in the English language, and names and terms should be those commonly used in English. See also Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible
I've been reading a lot in the media about the slowdown in Wikipedia's growth, and some associated comments from occassional editors who feel excluded because their work gets reverted or deleted. I have no doubt that there is some exlusivity growing in the Wikipedia community. I am, at best, a casual contributor - only as time allows. Yet I have not felt the cold winds of edit reversion as some have.
My hints for a happy experience:
Articles I have created.
Articles I have expanded or to which I have made significant contributions.
A selection of other contributions.
I've just discovered Librarything. Nice toy! See my User Page
Locations I have visited in my travels, and memorable things I found there.