User:MrMurph101

Greetings. I have been a part-time, almost sporadic editor for a couple of years now. If I had more time I would involve myself more with this project. For now, I'll just edit where I see fit and enjoy the articles that express my interest whether I edit them or not.

I do my best to abide by the NPOV policy. Some edits may be in favor of what I disagree with but I believe accuracy is of utmost importance. There needs to be some place on the internet where we can get just the facts without people inserting their agendas and distorting things. I hope that wikipedia can ultimately be that place.


 * Tools, etc.
 * Virgil's WikiScanner See which organizations are editing wikipedia.
 * I wrote an essay to argue for a guideline in how to deal with the content of criticism and hopefully develop a more consistent approach to it.
 * stats
 * [[image:Face-smile.svg|25px]]

Articles I have started

 * 1916 Cumberland vs. Georgia Tech football game-That's american football. Georgia Tech won 222-0.
 * Chalk (film)
 * Wildlife Jams
 * Jim Phelps

Philosophy
You scored as Cultural Creative. Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational. 69%     Idealist      63%      Existentialist      63%      Materialist      56%      Postmodernist      50%      Modernist      50%      Romanticist      38%      Fundamentalist      38% from Quizfarm

Political Compass
According to the Political Compass, I am a "Libertarian Left" in my political beliefs. I scored -3.5 Economic Left/Right and Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -3.08 so I am pretty close to the center on both lines apparently.

Wikipedia philosophy
from WP:UNDUE... ''Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide.''

I do not consider myself a major player in wikiland but I support the idea of wikipedia. In a way it "levels the playing field." There can always be multiple perspectives contributing to an article without one being dominant. Sorry, but no one is "guarding" any given article. If you think that is the case you are probably suffering from MPOV. A printed encyclopedia is written by a select group of people who usually bring in their own biases to the table, most likely unintentional. Once it goes into print, any errors stay there forever. On wikipedia, any glaring omissions or errors can corrected fairly easily once they are identified. Sure, there are hiccups to this format like vandalism and debating what constitutes as "encyclopedic." This has inspired editors to become deletionists, mergists, countervandalists, inclusionists, delusionists, etc. I believe I have played all those roles at least once. I do not consider myself singled out to any philosophy, I just choose whatever is appropriate at the given time.

I think it would be more appropriate to call wikipedia an "omnipedia" as opposed to an encyclopedia. By it's own nature, wikipedia has more scope than an encyclopedia on covering any given topic. What I am referring to mainly is the notion of cruft. Cruft will never go away if wikipedia keeps it's current format. I do not think it's even worth it to fight if your against it. I say just let it be and try to make the article(s) better instead.