User:Pragmatic

About Me: I have been editing in Wikipedia as anonymous for quite some time, so I know a lot of how this place works. My interests vary. I'm especially interested in formatting and keeping things as clean as possible. When I'm bored I also like correcting typos, double spaces, and general yuckiness found in articles. English is not my mother tongue so I may need your help correcting grammar from time to time.

My thoughts about Wikipedia: I know this will sound rough, but I've never taken Wikipedia seriously. I don't think this disqualifies me as a contributor. I think it is a great experiment. I'm here mostly to edit, because editing is addicting. However I take with a grain of salt everything I read here, especially after knowing how things work. If I ever read something that I think is interesting, I immediatly fact-check it in authoritative sources on the matter, either online, or on paper. I believe this is the most healthy way of using Wikipedia.

Wikipedia for the future: Jimbo Wales, the creator of Wikipedia, I believe always had this plan for Wikipedia. He would first make it as open as it is now; everybody would be able edit, and your edits would be seen immediately. This is beneficial in the sense that it allows the encyclopedia to grow exponentially. After this period of openness, and once the encyclopedia is large enough and stable enough, he would limit the freedom of the system. First he would allow only member users to edit it. Registration would still be free. Then, the biggest change. The system would change to a score-based system, when all editors would be arranged hierarchically based on their editing points. New users would begin with zero points, and all of their changes would be monitored—by the large bureaucracy in charge— before going live. If the edits are good (non-bullshit, non-biased), the editor would earn a point. After the editor accumulated a certain amounts of points his edits would go live without monitoring. If the editor engaged in revert-wars, or posted biased or untruth information, he would be penalized with a certain amount of points according to the offense. This would encourage civility among editors, and it would be a great incentive to keep the encyclopedia free of problems. (TBC...)