I'm new here, but finding it fascinating and fun to research totally new and random things. I have done a lot of edits on Wikipedia articles, too numerous to bother mentioning here, but the more substantial or interesting ones are below. I typically hit random link and see what shows up, what needs improvement and what is missing that is interesting.
My general philosophy is that:
- Articles should be human. Articles are not for consumption by a computer digesting facts, but by a human which is capable of making judgements and very capable of losing interest in dry statements. An article should contain human-interest facts (see the vegetable/fruit controversy in tomato), down-to-earth writing, and opinions (not my own) where possible without violating NPOV. Saying that Monstera deliciosa is poisonous and delicious is not strictly NPOV, but it's a non-controversial opinion that gets the reader's attention.
- Articles are jumping points -- you may not get all the information about the subject, but you will get a very good overview and get basic information on all the key players, so that you have a way to research further.
- Links should be serendipitous, containing occasional links to things not specifically related to the article (done by linking words in the text that you probably wouldn't have linked if you were just concentrating on someone who was reading to find out about the particular subject at hand).
My Homepage