User:ACK-47

Who I Am
Hello there. I registered this account on 7 August 2005, although I've been editing off and on since 6 April and I've been browsing about Wikipedia much longer than that.

Logged off, I edit as 68.96.162.252.

I am an American, born and (mostly) raised in the west; I stand strongly on the political and economic left on a great majority of issues, although I'm not readily pidgeonholed into any mass political organization. Bear in mind that I try to keep my politics out of anything I write here.

I am studying political science at UNLV, for what it's worth.

I know a little about a lot, but most of the topics I have a great and particular interest in - political science, history, literature, etc. - are already being covered by people with more professional background on them, and my role in Wikipedia in the near to immediate future is probably going to be more a janitor than a carpenter. Also note that I'm not such a slick editor yet, so you'll have to forgive me if I make any terrible newbie mistakes. Either that or be really angry for no good reason, I suppose.

As I'm currently too lazy to find the language stickers at present, and I feel uncomfortable applying a grade to myself, I'm a native speaker of English and have a bit of French and Japanese on me too.

I Admit My Biases
I:
 * Am pro-underdog
 * Am anti-neoliberal
 * Am pro-science
 * Am a passionate rationalist
 * Am a general-purpose contrarian
 * Am strongly critical of the US and the Catholic church, but find outside criticism of either faintly distasteful
 * Consider puppies adorable
 * Am a feminist and an everything else-ist while I'm at it
 * Think there's more than enough people in this world
 * Have a Politicalcompass score around -9, -9
 * Hate imperialism and its peanut gallery
 * Am not a Democrat, but feel forced to vote for them
 * Have modernist sensibilities when it comes to literature
 * Abhor South Park and can't put my finger on why
 * Am made of poison
 * Am unfashionable when it comes to the third world insomuch as I sympathize with it without treating it like three billion children
 * Am a product of the welfare state, just like you
 * Actually enjoy Penny Arcade
 * Consider kittens adorable too
 * Am a straight white middle-class American man
 * Consider Wikipedia biased
 * Think loving England and hating France is where America first went wrong
 * Believe an article isn't worth reading until it has illustrations of celestial bodies or boobies in it, and when it has both it is perfect

My work on Wikipedia
Pages I have worked over, am working over, or plan to work over:
 * Comprachicos
 * Sam Webb
 * The kana in general
 * Victoria (computer game)

Accuracy disputes
On top of all of that, I run on a maxim that has already gotten me into some mild disputes: any significant assertion requires significant proof. I am apparently in the minority among Wikipedia contributors in that if information is remotely dubious I favor removing it, or at the very least noting it as dubious. The converse policy turns Wikipedia into a misinformation vector, particularly favoring already-popular misinformation (urban legends and the like).

Articles wherein I have been engaged in such a dispute:
 * Beaver: Has the Catholic Church ever considered beavers fish for fasting purposes? I thought not; as it turns out, yes. Citations have been improved and the tidbit about that removed from its previous station of prominence and they all lived happily ever after.

Tragedies
The following articles make me very sad, but I will not be messing with them, as they are well-supported by a cadre of loyal editors and in an area of expertise I am not prepared to muck around in:
 * Race presupposes that 'race' is a valid concept to begin with and gives a pedestal to some of the dumbest misscience in human history.
 * Gold as an investment systematically favors the idea gold has inherent value, from the name down.
 * Cleveland Indians allows one of the more disgusting instances of racist imagery in popular culture to go entirely without comment.