About me
my boxes
ESU | 54% for major edits and 37% for minor edits. – Last update: 17:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC). |
CTB | This user has contributed to the following pages. |
HIS | This user's favourite subject is History. |
| This user is interested in law. |
| This user enjoys heavy reading, such as Shakespeare and other dead guys. |
LE-1 | This user's been known to screw up the occasional sentence and make the occasional typo, but is otherwise pretty accurate with regards to English. |
|
I have left Wikipedia in favor of Citizendium. I hope it will avoid many of Wikipedia's accuracy and POV problems.
You can find links to my contributions, edit count, etc., in the userboxes on the right. I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject US Supreme Court Cases and Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism.
My major interests
- Catholicism (I'm not linking to it -- the article is abysmal)
- Philosophy, especially
- History, especially
- Classics
- Law, especially
- American politics, more of a guilty obsession, not really an "interest". I have a love-hate relationship with politics. Politics is all about the present. Uninformed by the wisdom of the ages (as it almost invariably is), it is an exercise in futility.
My Approach to Wikipedia
The point of an encylcopedia is to consolidate information insofar as possible and reasonable. Redundant articles fly in the face of this idea. It's ultimately about ease of use and accessibility.
In terms of NPOV, each editor obviously has his own POV about any number of topics. But I don't think that an editorial NPOV is dependent upon opinionless editors. I once worked for my campus newspaper, and I believe (from my own experience) that an editorial NPOV is achievable even if an editor has strong opinions about what he or she is covering.
I also think it's a constant temptation for editors here to get wrapped up in hopelessly subjective/POV debates about an article's subject. Substantive debates have their place, but that place is not Wikipedia.