User:Joema

I welcome any advice or tips about how to improve, or concerns over changes I've made to articles. Please use the article talk page (discussion tab) for that, or else my talk page, not this user page.

I've only written three articles from scratch:


 * Big Sky Theory
 * Flight controller
 * Arc Flashlight

I've made significant revisions/additions to:


 * Space Shuttle program
 * Space Shuttle Challenger disaster
 * Space Shuttle Columbia disaster
 * Space Shuttle abort modes
 * Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle
 * NASA Space Shuttle decision
 * Single-stage to orbit
 * Manned Maneuvering Unit
 * Nuclear weapon yield
 * Radioisotope thermoelectric generator
 * Airborne Laser
 * Aircraft flight control systems
 * Tactical High Energy Laser
 * Inertron
 * Vortex satellite
 * Rockwell X-30
 * Blood substitutes
 * Anti-ballistic missile
 * National Missile Defense
 * Missile defense
 * Space shuttle thermal protection system
 * Saturn V
 * Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster
 * Microprogram
 * Apollo 11
 * F-1 (rocket engine)
 * Streamlight
 * Surefire
 * SLC-6
 * Serotonin syndrome
 * Biological psychiatry (complete re-write)
 * Superscalar

I suggested what I think is an important way to improve Wikipedia article quality: [Simple Methods for Better Writing]

I frequently correct technical articles that contain outright errors or grossly misleading statements. For major changes, I usually post the suggestion in the discussion tab for discussion before making any changes.

I have some knowledge about aviation, space, science, cars, motorcycles, home theater, relational databases and flashlights.Joema 04:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Useful tools
Tools /joema_sandbox; see Sandbox

Concern over lack of encyclopedic focus by many writers
I'm quite concerned that NPOV as currently worded encourages the widely held but erroneous notion that articles should contain pro/con positions on anything that any writer feels strongly about. This is positively wrong and not what an encyclopedia should emphasize. The prime directive is to convey descriptive information about the article topic.

On some highly controversial topics like abortion, Wikipedia splits out the debate to a separate article about the debate.

Unfortunately the vast majority of articles with the slightest controversial element are often peppered with pro/con positions, which greatly dilute the factual presentation that should be an encyclopedia's top priority.

I often read comments an article is too analytic, too factual, too dry, too much like a press release, not enough criticism. Yet in general these are the exact traits an encyclopedia should emphasize!! Apparently many people are confused about the main purpose of an encyclopedia. This isn't a coffee shop discussion, or high school civics discussion, or usenet discussion, where everybody presents their own opinion. An encyclopedia is none of those, and many writers are evidently confused about that.

People often see the hostile, questioning attitude of the popular media or investigative news reporters. Wikipedia isn't the news. We're not investigative reporters. This is an encyclopedia. The main purpose is to describe the article topic and present information on that, not to present pro/con opinions, or question the rightness or wrongness of the described item. Joema 16:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)