User:Charles Edward

11
This editor has contributed significantly to 11 pieces of featured content. 		30
This editor has contributed significantly to 30 good articles. 		39
This editor has contributed to 39 DYKs.
This editor is a Rollbacker
This editor has Autoreviewer rights
This editor uses auto wiki browser
This editor is a reviewer

This editor is a
Senior Editor III
and is entitled to display this Rhodium
Editor Star.


I spend more time reading than editing. I learn much more from Wikipedia than I contribute. I don't consider myself to be an authority on much of anything, I am more of a well informed bystander than anything else. I used to just browse and edit without a user account for over a year - watching this place grow has been amazing. It was not until I actually wanted to create an article in 2006 that I created this account, and then I pretty well stopped using it until 2007, going back to my anonymous habits. I decided to start editing articles more frequently in 2008, and began using this account regularly then. I am on the commons now too, but I am only ever there to upload stuff. Contacting me here is best.

I have managed to help author a few FAs now, of which I am proud. Copy editing is my biggest challenge, and it was thanks to the help of some good copy editors that the FAs I have worked on were accepted. I have a couple more FAs in the works that hopefully will develop fairly soon. From time to time I make a peer review, patrol new pages, review good articles, keep an eye on RFA, and occasionally participate in important discussions. But most of the time, I just edit!

I consider editing on Wikipedia a hobby, and I really detest drama and stress. While there have been a few times I have spoken out, I generally prefer to stay out of the drama\politics\vitriol that is, quite unfortunately, rather common on the fringes and occasionally at the heart of this project. Instead I enjoy working with the few editors around me who are actually more interested in writing a good article, than enforcing their will on others. Live and let live.

The quality discourse

I am also a firm believer in quality over quantity. It is my opinion that one line, unsourced, inaccurate, and otherwise useless articles do in fact harm Wikipedia. While it can be argued that we are not paper, etc; having worthless articles, and particularly having (100s of?) thousands of inaccurate articles that no one patrols allowing all sorts of gradual creeping vandalism, harms the credibility of Wikipedia. The harm caused to our reputation as a project because of poor article quality far outweighs, in my opinion, the value of having such articles. At a minimum, I believe we should prevent low quality articles from being indexed by search engines. In no way do I advocate the wholesale deletion of such articles, just removing them, somewhat, from the public eye. We have entered a phase were article quality is important and attracting subject matter experts is critical to the further improvement of the project.

Wikipedia needs to become more accepted as a quality source of information if we are going attract a significant number of badly needed experts, a cadre of new dedicated editors and admins. This can only be accomplished, in my oh so humble opinion, by focusing on quality to improve our public image to make those experts consider Wikipedia a reputable place to publish knowledge.

The advertising discourse

I am opposed to operating Wikipedia on charitable donations. With some simple ads, we could more than pay for all the financial needs of the foundation. I oppose the use of charitable funds on moral grounds. There are many other worthy charities that cannot operate without charitable contributions. By soliciting donations, we are drawing charitable funds that could be spent elsewhere on critical causes.

If an orphanage could guarantee funding of its operations by placing a billboard on its property, we would consider that organization to be negligent if it failed to do so. If a feed the poor program could reach thousands of more starving people by selling advertisements in its newsletter, we would be startled at their refusal to do so.

To solicit donations when we are completely capable of funding ourselves is simply a wrong thing to do. Because of that reality, I view our donation and charitable giving campaigns as dishonest and misleading to our donors. We have no true need to accept charitable donations, therefore it is unethical to do so and is misleading to our donors to make them think we require their donations to operate.

My pages


Notes