Here is my to do list--mainly for my own use, but also to let people know where my priorities are right now.
I've worked on many hundreds of articles. I originated quite a few. I've inflicted a series of philosophy lectures first on Ohio State students, and now on Wikipedia.
I've written a few 'pedia-related columns, which I've moved to [Wikipedia's meta-discussion wiki].
I am trying to promote Wikipedia. I want your help! Go to building Wikipedia membership.
I co-founded Wikipedia, and I am one of a few people who are paid to help organize this project.
Yes, I agree, he is he, nobody would argue with me! :-P
He is he, but this is twee, we'd all agree.
Larry's favorite philosopher is Thomas Reid, isn't he? Maybe!
Go ahead! No need to ask me. --LMS
I'll try to get to it sometime soon. I've just driven to Longmont, Colorado and the plans for the next week are up in the air, but I'll be at work.
This is something for the sysadmins to deal with...I forwarded it to Jimbo. --LMS
Can't say that name rings a bell. I'm very glad to hear that the NYT Magazine piece brought in some good hands! --LMS
I'm brand new to Wikipedia, but I've jumped in with both feet. Right into a fire! My special interests include fantasy literature, which led me to start a page on Christian mythology. Well, since then it's been madness. I've tried to be neutral, compromising, and respectful, but I'm now seeing wholesale redirection of pages, loss of content I wrote, and ideas that disturb me -- for example, should we really have an encyclopedia with no "Greek mythology" page? (It got redirected to "The stories of the Greek religion.") My question for you -- have I breached etiquette in some way? Am I contributing badly? I feel discouraged -- what can/should I do about it? Should I just let it all drop, forget about these pages, and focus on Tolkien and D&D posts?
Thanks for any comment you have. Sorry to be a pest. -- Cayzle
I agree completely with Simon: you've made a great, important contribution, and you've essentially done nothing wrong. And don't let me get to you. :-) If anything--since you ask--I would recommend that you (and all of us, of course!) try to be more sensitive to how others' beliefs are characterized. On those grounds--and this is not to say anything damning at all about you personally, bear in mind--I really do think there's something wrong with Wikipedia's listing old Bible stories as "Christian mythology," without further ado, etc. If there were a big Bible stories or [traditional Christian stories]? article, and then, in addition, a Christian mythology article that explained the very notion of referring to those stories (and perhaps other stories) as a "mythology," that would be good. In any case, this is one issue (unlike other issues) that would be better treated sensitively by an expert. I think the right way to go about finding out how to do this is to solicit the advice of a few different religious studies professors, after having presented the issue clearly and in full.
I hope it's clear that this has nothing to do with you in particular; it has everything to do with the issue that you happened to have raised. Realize that you do not have direct control over what you've contributed. Neither do I (!), and neither does anyone else. We're working on it together, and the only thing that holds us together, I think, is the neutral point of view policy: the only thing that keeps us from all-out constant edit wars is that we are jointly committed to making each other, and future participants and readers, happy with how our many different views are characterized. This gives us a reasonably clear goal that nearly all of us, at least in practice, are willing to pursue. But it requires tolerance and intelligence, and probably a good sense of humor.
Just since you asked! :-) Cheers, Larry
Under Buffalo, in the State of New York, page my link goes to a description of the water buffalo, bubalus bubalus, instead of the city! Help! http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/New_York Werner Moeller
LMS, I have often criticized you for (IMO) not being NPOV, and you have often apparently found me offensive about this. In the interest of fairness, I'd like to say that the above strikes me as a great example of how NPOV issues on Wikipedia should be handled. (So am I getting mellow, or are you? :-) Have a good one.)
Very busy here in Colorado, and sorry I haven't been able to participate more, folks. --LMS