User:RTao

Times I was targeted by or witnessed a legal threat:

The RTao Cinematic Universe (aka my userspace)

Summary of my day-by-day activity

Articles created

 * Century Mine (coal mine in Ohio)
 * (more in the pipeline)

Worklist
(note to self: also check watchlist and SuggestBot)
 * Cruise ship dance host: old one sitting in my drafts, needs near-total rewrite
 * Butter chicken: clean up at least inventor controversy (and on related articles)
 * Lake Erie Cargill salt mine: work on, finish draft
 * Lake Erie Morton salt mine: work on, finish draft
 * (inevitable, euphemism for "procrastination") divert attention to other areas as they arise
 * Watch WP:COPYVIO situation re Peninsula, Ohio
 * Wing clipping needs more organization and better sources
 * Check Forum (alternative dispute resolution) article title (and text) capitalization

Philosophy or generously titled verbose late-night rant
I am, in the first place, a Wikipedia reader because Wikipedia is unique in its relative homogeneity, depth and breadth of coverage, interconnectedness, and quality. I also edit Wikipedia because I'd like to give back, and because I find that actively editing in areas of my interest is a good way to deepen my own knowledge in addition to passive reading.

I believe in WP:CITEEVERYTHING. I'm concerned about edits that inject unsourced material into sourced paragraphs, creating the illusion of referencing. While ideally readers verify every statement by following through to the source, in practice this is far too tedious for general reading (and other use often exceeds the scope of an encyclopedia article). I'm quite confident most readers (at the very least myself) are much more concerned about under-citing than over-citing. An over-cited statement is rare, visible, and annoying; an under-cited statement is common, invisible, and dangerous.

Example:, (Who is John Zaller? Hint: not the author of the quoted definition.)

I sometimes think of Wikipedia backwards, articles being primarily a list of reliable sources and secondarily statements coming from those sources. This perspective views Wikipedia as a jumping-off point for information on a subject, not the authority, which I believe is better aligned to its (our?) nature as an openly edited work. This corresponds to the way I was taught to view Wikipedia in academic settings, where I acknowledge Wikipedia is generally cast in a negative light.

In practical terms: this means I value "cite everything" (see above), and I will cite all applicable sources for a statement to a reasonable extent (not a dozen cites for a single statement). I also pay attention to the references section itself (and should try to do the same for the "further reading" section). I try to fill missing information in citations, convert bare URLs, and remove duplicate citations. Removing unreliable sources and associated content is a particularly important activity. This is all one relatively inexperienced editor's opinion, so don't take it too seriously and don't use it as an excuse to violate consensus.

Finally, for what I hope is a less radical opinion, I find undisclosed, paid COI editing – the kind advertised by "professional" Wikipedia writing services – highly unethical and shameful. I hope the Wikipedia community and WMF will work together to frustrate, uncover, and punish the perpetrators as well as warn, and when appropriate, expose individuals and organizations who make use of such services.