I am a scientist. I believe in transparency. I do not believe in anonymous edits since I have seen how Wikipedia has become a vehicle for the propaganda of dictatorships using staffers to edit. Encyclopedic entries should be signed by the person who wrote it. Just like scientific articles they should declare their possible conflicts of interest. Otherwise they have no credibility. And why not? Any person writing encyclopedic entries must be prepared to stand for what he or she has written. And so must the editors. So here is my CV in brief:
Name: Ulf Erlingsson
Nationality: Sweden
Degree: FD (similar to PhD or D.Sc.), Department of Physical Geography, Uppsala University, 1990
Thesis: Geomorphological development of the bottoms off Österlen, southernmost Sweden. UNGI Rapport 76, 136 p.
Peer-reviewed articles:
Served as peer-review editor in:
Personal Blog: BLOG.ERLINGSSON.COM [[1]]
As a geographer I have traveled the world and seen this and that. I started editing Wikipedia when I found something that was obviously wrong, and after a while I created an account and did a bit more editing, and from there it just continued.
As a doctor, used to writing scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals, and also reviewing such articles, I know a bit about sources. My biggest complaint with Wikipedia is the poor fact-checking by many of the editors. Granted, this is an encyclopedia and not a scientific paper, but an article here is (or should be) darn similar to a review paper. My frustration is great when I try to step in and fix a problem, just to be stopped by some sysop who doesn't seem to have any post-graduate education at all! (imagine tongue in cheek)
But why complain and not do anything about it? Today I first decided to give up and retire, but then I changed my mind and decided to increase my involvement so that I can take action and not just complain. So there.