From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello - I am diligent and persistent editor. In my experience on Wikipedia I have found that a lot of editors waste a lot of time making personal attacks rather than focusing on the content of the actual post. I've developed a tough skin in here and would give this advise to new editors - do not be concerned about what others say, stay true to your principles.The personal intent of good faith behind posts is often lost in written translation. I am not concerned about the personal squabbles that editors might have with my posts and would ask that others not waste my time critiquing myself or others on a personal level.
A good editor can look at the rationale, reasoning, and quality of posted work relevant to the topic and avoid confusion by getting mixed-up in personality issues. If it takes a paragraph or two (or even three) to get an idea across effectively, so be it. I do not subscribe to the notion that tiny posts are better in this age of brevity; this is an encyclopaedia and it might take more than a single sentence to get at the meat of an idea. If I come across as a big jerk, that is immaterial - it is the relevant content that matters. Ideas need to stand on their own foundation, the messenger is immaterial.
Outside Wikipedia I have a BSc in Wildlife Biology from UNBC, a MSc in Molecular Zoology from UofC, and I'm completing my MEd in Ecoliteracy Education, leadership, and conservation psychology at UNBC. I worked full-time for eight years running a genetics facility on the UNBC campus. I am currently employed as an aquatic restoration ecologist for a local consulting company. I'm interested in knowledge, science, philosophy, and doing what I can to contribute to the Wikipedian venture.
I've wasted a lot of my time in the main evolution article and sometimes wonder why I even bother. There are a lot of great articles in wikipedia, but some of the main articles (like evolution) are problematic. They are being guarded by old cohorts of editors that are too afraid of change and are entrenched in their personal ideals of what the topic is about. Squabbles within the evolution article, for example, has created an impasse leaving us with a sub-standard article despite the fact that it is listed as a featured article. I think this is a shame. Still, I hold out hope for wikipedia.
My Contributions
Main Author
Contributor
Pages created
Reviewed
Awards
|
|
The Bio-star
|
| For the excellent work you have put into Conservation biology and other biology-related articles, I award you this Barnstar. Epipelagic (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
|
|
|
The E=mc² Barnstar
|
| For overcoming group inertia and improving the evolution article. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
|
|
The Original Barnstar
|
| For your extremely collaborative, positive and open minded approach to editing visible in the way you have handled the discussion at Talk:Evolution. I am happy there are editors like you who are both fountains of knowledge, dilligent researchers and who are able to appreciate other people's points of view, even when they don't necessarily agree. Thanks! ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
|
Interests
Ecology
Conservation Biology
Natural Capital
Politics
Philosophy
/Sandbox
Templates
