User:Lynxano



our commons page, where i share my favourite commons pictures and where i upload my own

i am girl, address me as such.

my special interests are dress up and fashion, public transport, an art. i am also autistic about aotearoa birdies. kereru is literally our best friend!

~ currently ~
fleshing out public transport in new zealand articles, which, for the most part, lack citations and any modern info (last ~15 years), and are very short!

primary focus:

id be interested in improving their assessment grade, but i need tutoring for how to write good articles and following MOS!
 * Public transport in New Zealand
 * Public transport in the Otago Region

I'm currently reading and making notes from a book called "Can't get there from here - New Zealand Passenger Rail since 1920" by André Brett, partially for wikipedia, partially for ourselves, since we're interested. although, trains are generally better documented than buses, and so im not sure how much I can add to railways

~ bias disclosure ~
i ride the bus everywhere cuz i have to ^w^ so im pretty pro bus all things considered ~

i also have bias when talking about Hazel McCallion, former mayor of Mississauga. it is related to anti queen of sprawl journalism things.

my thoughts on wikipedia
i like wikipedia and think supporting it is important healthy and also

we have two massive problems with it, one with policy, and one with culture.

wikipedia as a site feels almost systemically set up to exclude the work and perspectives of anyone other than the average wikipedian (white, male, mid twenties, english speaking). this is absurdly frustrating when edits are reverted under the idea they are not relevant but when in reality they just aren't relevant to this demographic. this is the cultural issue.

the political issue is the no self published sources rule. I completely understand why it is in place, but it massively biases coverage on the site to mainstream media, which has becoming progressively less and less journalist, and more and more sensational.

in canada, we are very very lucky to have the CBC, which acts as the by far most neutral and balanced mainstream publisher. but even with the CBC, it only covers the most popular topics, which leaves a huge gap of information on more niche things.

so, the current wikipedia policies mandate that secondary sources be either biased or completely insufficient for information.

a case study: we primarily edit public transport wikipedia. so much crucial information just isn't published in a reliable source because not enough people take public transport in english speaking countries to make it worthwhile to publish. but, as someone who takes the bus several times every single day, these things are so basic and matter of fact it is absolutely absurd that wikipedia cannot document them.

and when information is published, it nearly always is presented from a motorist and conservative perspective. which means that bus articles end up filling up with information about how excessive subsidies are and nothing else, when subsidies should not remotely matter for one of the most essential public services out there.

when on the other hand, finding information on the experience of riding public transport is essentially impossible. the day to day stuff like operations and passenger comfort and the real world effectiveness, the stuff that actually matters, Impossible to find, or heavily stigmatised. and this is for something relatively inconsequential.

it's extremely horrible for things like mental illnesses, queerness, neurodiversity, and all that. we are Autistic, with a capital A, and the article on autism on this site is so heavily negatively biased filled with misinformation that cannot be challenged because a reputable source published it, and until very recently, no one published positive autistic-written work about autism.

like the autism page is absolutely one of the most disgusting, but the general stigma articles here carry on things like sexual kinks, disabilities, etc, is unreal

pages i have created
i have functionally created the Fujifilm X-T10 page.

make camera and photography wikipedia good
aaaaaa

camera and photography wikipedia feels heavily neglected by people better at editing than us, and it shows. pages are filled with meaningless jargon that say the same thing 5 times over while each timing going out of its way to say it actually means something different. they are filled with false information or heavily misleading information, sometimes they are just filled with marketing information. It's a hellscape.

Camera and photoraphy wikipedia is entirely useless to normal people, photographers, and is only somewhat useful for people interested in optics scientifically (since there is a *lot* of misinformation and bad sources). it feels like it's written by a small set of somewhat techy photographers that write things based on vibes and anecdotal information they heard somewhere.

I am, not capable of resolving this on my own, and understand it will take a lot of community work as well as actual editing. I actually don't know how much i can do, because so much of so many pages is just completely wrong or badly written, it's incredibly overwhelming to do full reforms all on my own. Sometimes we get writing and proofing help, which also makes the task of spending days writing edits easier,

vent
i also have bpd and usually have major mental health episodes whenever one of our good faith edits is reverted or our hard work is diluted and restructured negatively. talk page is good for this because it provides a external place to establish changes and come to terms with them.

we made severe overhaul of mirrorless camera lede section, for example, to get rid of the meaningless jargon and needless gatekeeping and to make it actually mean something to the majority of readers. it's now been diluted and our response is to delete all edits we are working on and abandon the people around us.

we were once told to put what we entered on a different wiki that wasn't designed for the information in question. bus frequencies are entirely encyclopedic and are very useful in a encyclopedia for research and operation knowledge and it is absolutely not just a immediate traveler guide.

i think the only reason i still edit wikipedia despite all the mental pain its put me through when my hard work is reverted, is because i am in love someone, who edits wikipedia a lot, and i admire them a lot and enjoy sharing their interests. yay! love wins. this is here as a vent and not meant to ask for anything. i write for my own sake