Wiki - Adding "balance" to articles

[softwareNerd]

Reading GC's post about students reading the "One Minute" site, reminded me of a type of activism I think can be useful on the margins: adding to the Wiki, presenting people with facts that other editors might be ignoring. Many students use the Wiki to do homework, and it would be nice if they had access to facts that an Objectivist may want to highlight.

Do not "troll" the Wiki, nor add polemic. This is best left to others. Instead, simply add facts that are uncontroversial, but lesser known.

For instance, a couple of times, I've read about someone in a book, and checked the Wiki for more. One time, there was no entry for the person (James Lemen), even though knowing about him was an important piece in understanding Jefferson's attitude toward slavery. Another time, reading about Sewell Avery, I found that the article was very slanted, and did not present Avery's side; so, I added a short, but relevant quote.

It's an easy thing to do from time to time.

Follow all Wiki's rules. (I know we have a Wiki admin among our members; I'd welcome any caveats). While posting, try to enhance the mission that the owners of Wiki have set for themselves. Speak with facts; and, speak to the intelligent reader who will see the relevance of those facts. Also, always try to add a citation.

Edited December 18, 2008 by softwareNerd

[brian0918]

Am I the Wiki admin you're referring to? My use of Wikipedia has waned over the last year. I still check it every day or two but I'm not nearly as involved in the policy discussions as I was a few years ago.

If you're going to add content to Wikipedia the most important thing is to make sure you source it properly, with sources that most people would consider reliable. Don't quote a blog or a forum. Use primary sources whenever possible (newspapers, books, journals). Second, make sure your writing is decent. Don't throw facts into random spots - it destroys the flow of the whole article. Also, don't infer connections that are not described in your sources. The sources should do all the work for you, and your only job is to paraphrase the source.

If you do not source it properly, it's likely that your changes will be reverted. You can go to the history tab at the top to see what has changed and why it was changed. The next step is to go to the discussion tab, click on New Section, and talk about it. Other people will respond and eventually some consensus will come about.

To cite sources, use <ref></ref> tags combined with the <References/> function at the end of the article. For example:

The '''sun''' is a mass of incandescent gas<ref>They Might Be Giants. 1997.</ref> - a gigantic nuclear furnace.<ref>Smith, John. ''Encyclopedia of Astronomy''. 1982. p 84.</ref>

==References==

<References/>

This will show up as:

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas^[1] - a gigantic nuclear furnace.^[2]

References

* They Might Be Giants. 1997.

* Smith, John. Encyclopedia of Astronomy. 1982. p 84.

Here's an example article I wrote (primarily) a few years ago... not really a source of debate, but it gives you an idea of how fact-based Wikipedia can (and should) be.

If you're completely new to Wikipedia editing and don't feel like reading instructions, just go to the Sandbox, click edit this page at the top, and type away. That's how I learned.

Edited December 18, 2008 by brian0918

[softwareNerd]

Am I the Wiki admin you're referring to?

Yes, I was. I didn't want to "out" you without your permission.

Thanks for the tips.