User:Vontheri

NOTICE: I am a bit pre-occupied for the foreseeable future so I don't have as much time for Wikipedia right now. Please forgive any delay in responses for any discussions I may have been involved in.

Welcome to my user page. This is where I write my various thoughts about Wikipedia for the one person per decade who may actually take the time to read it. If that person is you, then thank you!

My Wikipedia Philosophy
I'm often amazed at how rude/uncivil so many editors can be. Sometimes even something as simple as adding words like "please" and "thank you" can really change the tone of things. If Wikipedia were a Thomas Cole painting, then it would currently be somewhere between The Consummation and Destruction. How long will it take to get to Desolation?

I have a personal policy that I am against policies. I think Wikipedia would be much better off if about 90% of policies were destroyed and common sense were used on a case-by-case basis. Not everything has to be completely consistent at all times. Policies and precedence ensure that mistakes get repeated; consistency is greatly overrated.

Objectivity
I believe Wikipedia should strive to be ultra-objective. Please do not present opinion, however mainstream that opinion may be, as fact. If something is true, then show that it is true; don't tell that it is true. Oftentimes over-emphasizing that something is true/false (whichever applies to the specific situation) or a "conspiracy theory" only serves to reinforce the exact beliefs you are attempting to eradicate. People who aren't thinking totally rationally will often use the fact that news outlets or other sources (such as Wikipedia) are always reminding people that something is "false" will use this as evidence that it actually isn't false. Haven't you ever heard someone say something such as, "if Biden really did legitimately win the 2020 election, then why does the 'mainstream media' always need to keep repeating to us that Trump lost?" We should explain why something is true or false using evidence that speaks for itself, not condescendingly just tell people what is true or false by rote. Know your audience.

For example: instead of saying "X is often falsely [citation] believed to cause cancer." It's much better to say something like, "X is often believed to cause cancer, however studies [citation] have failed to find such a link."

Inclusionism
My Wikipedia philosophy is inclusionist. If information is accurate and could potentially be useful to someone, then there is no reason not to include it. Of course, there is the risk of articles becoming cluttered with relatively obscure information, hiding the information that a larger number of people are looking for. But, if articles are properly organized, and more obscure or specific information is put in articles where it will be accessible to those looking for it, but not cluttering more prominent articles, then that risk will be avoided.

I think some people are far too hasty to nominate articles for deletion. Why they enjoy doing this I have yet to fully grasp. (see paragraph below for tangent)* When I participate in deletion discussions, I sometimes feel like I'm a defence attorney trying to protect innocent articles from execution (ie. deletion).

(Tangent)* The fact that I have difficulty understanding it is really an argument against my position, not an argument for it. When people say things like, "I just don't understand how anyone could possibly be in favor of/against [x political or philosophical issue]", they typically say that as an argument in favor of the position that they hold. But if you don't understand something, then how can you possibly have an accurate view on it?

If someone reading this who considers themselves an exclusionist (for example, someone who frequently nominates articles for deletion and more often votes "delete" than "keep") ever has the time and inclination, would you possibly be able to leave a message on my talk page to help me understand your position and philosophy? I want to understand this perspective.

Civility and building an encyclopedia
I strive to never act as though I have ownership over any articles I have made significant contributions to. Everyone has an ego at least to some extent—and I'm certainly no exception—but as long as you do so civilly and with honest intentions, then I am willing to listen to and consider any concerns you may have about my edits or the ways in which I edit Wikipedia. In my opinion, sometimes if you have contributed significantly to an article, then it's often best to leave that article alone for a while to let others have a chance to see your contributions and make adjustments of their own. (Obviously there are exceptions, such as correcting patently false information or removing vandalism.) Similarly, if you are a very frequent contributor to a particular section of Wikipedia, then why not consider taking a break for a month or two every now and then, to see how Wikipedia develops without you? And if you think that Wikipedia, or your favored section of Wikipedia, somehow needs you, such that things would somehow fall apart if you took such a break, or if you find yourself rarely being able to find compromise during talk page disputes, then maybe that's a sign that you're becoming a "Wikipedia dictator."

I think too much importance is given to how many edits someone has made. Quantity of edits tells nothing about the quality of edits. I can't help but be skeptical of the motives of someone when I see an editor with a large number of edits but a very small average edit size--I'm even more suspicious when the average edit size is negative. There are, of course, exceptions; for example: if someone is on Wikipedia primarily just to correct grammar errors or to remove blatant vandalism. But more often than not I can't help but wonder if the motive for editing is really to build an encyclopedia or to impede an actual encyclopedia. It can't possibly be an indication of good mental health when someone makes far more edits in a week than most serious editors make in a year. I say this not to cause offense to anyone to whom it may apply, but instead to hopefully induce introspection.

Concerns about Medical articles
Note: This issue has now been discussed here.

I'm very concerned by the way Wikipedia articles related to medicine are being dumbed-down. People looking for simplified medical information have plenty of other online resources available. Changing things like "intravenous" to "injection into a vein" or "myocarditis" to "inflammation of the heart" is just plain patronizing. (The latter example could even cause potentially dangerous confusions as "inflammation of the heart" could also conceivably refer to conditions other than myocarditis, such as endocarditis or pericarditis.)

Some editors have even changed a word so common as "orally" to "by mouth"! People who don't know the meanings of words such as "intravenous" and "orally" probably aren't reading Wikipedia to begin with, but even if they are, then they can simply click the word to go to an article about it and find out what it means. Such simplified wording may be appropriate for Simple English Wikipedia, but there is no good reason to do this on the regular English version of Wikipedia, and countless reasons not to.

If you treat people dumb, then they will stay dumb, and nothing good can come from keeping people ignorant. Let's please keep Wikipedia a place to expand knowledge, and not a place to limit it. No other sections of Wikipedia seem to be subjected to this phenomenon of intentionally being dumbed-down, and, if anything, medical-related articles should be the last to be butchered like this.

While I'm not a big fan of over-reliance on "policies", what I am saying is consistent with WP:MEDMOS which states, "Good encyclopedic writing will naturally teach the reader new words and help them build confidence with harder ones. While this can be done explicitly, with definitions in parenthesis for example, the most natural way to achieve this is to use the idiomatic words, the "proper" words for something, in context. Good writing will allow the reader to pick up enough of the meaning from this context."

Interests
These are the categories of articles where you'll find most, but not all, of my edits will be made. They are listed purely in alphabetical order, so being higher or lower on the list does not indicate that any certain interest is greater or less in importance to me than another:


 * The society, culture, dialects, anthropology, and history of Appalachia (It's pronounced "App-uh-latch-uh", NOT "App-uh-lay-shuh"; See this video of Sharyn McCrumb for an explanation.)
 * Biology, Biochemistry, and Biotechnology
 * Blackjack, card counting, and other casino advantage play
 * Economics, Finance, and Investing
 * Geography and Geopolitics
 * History
 * Medicine, Pharmacology, Anatomy, and Physiology
 * Philosophy and Logic
 * Political Science, Prison abolition, restorative justice, and Youth rights
 * Psychology and Sociology
 * Religion, Esotericism, Qabalah, Occultism, and Mythology
 * Rock Music: especially Punk Rock, New Wave, Post-Hardcore, Grunge, and Classic Rock
 * Science (in general)
 * Tea, and Tisanes
 * Transhumanism, life extension and Futures studies

(If it isn't obvious, I'm definitely a philomath with diverse interests.)

Although in practice, it has seemed that the bulk of my most substantial edits have been in articles related to medicine. This is because this is the area in which I feel I could do the most good by adding to Wikipedia. Information about, say, history or tea may be of interest to many people, but information about medicine could potentially even save someone's life. Even with how long Wikipedia has existed, there is still so much important and notable medical information that is lacking from articles, or topics that don't even have an article at all.

Who am I?
Most people seem to say a bit about who they are on their user page, so I suppose I'll do the same:

I'm a human. I'm from a planet called Earth. I have a gender. I'm somewhere between 5 and 120 years old. I have been editing Wikipedia somewhere between 5 minutes and 20 years, and have made somewhere between 10 and 1,000,000 edits.

In all seriousness, I prefer to stay as anonymous as possible on Wikipedia. I'd rather not say anything about what sort of credentials I may or may not have, or what sort of accomplishments I may or may not have made. I could be homeless; I could be a billionaire. I could have a Ph.D. from Harvard; I could have never finished the 8th grade. I could be a convicted felon; I could be a Nobel prize winner. My point is: I'd rather my contributions to Wikipedia and posts to talk pages be evaluated on their own merit. Who I am does not make my arguments any more or less true or logical.

(I have nothing against anyone who does choose to talk about their credentials or personal life on their user page, by the way, so please don't get the wrong impression. I'm just saying why I personally have chosen not to do so.)