User:JaredMcKenzie

What makes me want to edit?

What drives me to edit, are the articles I wish to understand or like. Back when I was in University, I first edited after noticing inaccuracies in a few articles. I think it was then when I first discovered that through the process of correcting articles and adding to it, it helps not just others but also myself to get a better understanding.

In Wikipedia, you are meant to look for high quality sources and ensure the article reflects the topic well. That standard and the experience of achieving a complete picture of a topic to come to fruition, is meaningful to me.

Nowadays I noticed Wikipedia is lacking in certain articles for stuff like cycling and sports medicine concepts like FOOSH injuries and the balance between posterior and anterior chains at the knee, etc - By working on building and improving such articles, it helps me learn. I also travel and like sharing photos of the towns I been in, when I noticed Wiki lacks such pics completely.

Even if my edits aren't relatively extensive, I like knowing they meaningfully improve content, help fellow readers understand or explore topics better, and allows me to keep learning and exploring too. This is what makes me to want to edit.

Editing philosophy

Nowadays I keep a fair distance from the more political articles (unless there's a healthy number of editors in threads), and only comment occasionally. I think even when an article contradicts the experts and you merely correct and add in an established expert concensus, you might expect people to get upset and want to hound the messenger for daring to add an expert view. On that, I hold to a simple principal, captured by the saying: "To offend a strong man, tell him a lie. To offend a weak man, tell him the truth". It's immaturity to not accept objective reality. If experts all explain that a certain thing is how things are, but you feel a need to punish harshly those who simply state the objective truths. That's more on you than it is on them.

Unfortunately in Wikipedia, some editors may have difficulties with accepting objective reality and need to attack the consensus of experts. They make it harder to add in facts especially when they have strong political feelings. I see this in social media too where denial or rage boils over. But in Wikipedia, there are few truly studious referees for the less popular threads. I suspect because everyone is a volunteer and there's so much drama constantly, that the only real refereeing is punishing anyone who seems to raise tensions, even if it's imprecise or disproportionate. This is far less any issue on topics with heaps of editors working on it as generally most do the right thing, and make it harder for a single problematic editor to insist their way. More a headache when you are dealing with them mostly alone. So as a general personal rule, I try to distance away from threads in political articles unless there's a healthy amount of editors (at least in the double digits) as it's so much easier to work to a consensus, if you are on the right track

Tho I also have come to learn that you are responsible for your own actions. Even if others show heated words at you due to disagreements, it's important to not take it personally. Accuracy matters, but so does professionalism.

I had also considered weighing in on topics on Zionism but it seems discussions are constantly over caring too much over the public image of the article, rather than ensuring readers can easily attain a complete picture in the lede. Overly arguing over whether to add in 3 extra words in lede, which can help inform readers better if included, but arguing they need to be removed because they perceive it as redundant and that the readers can figure it out themselves. Such talks seems trivial when it comes to pursuit of knowledge, and am just not into that trivial editing politics of Wikipedia.

Everyone is a volunteer here. You can choose what you come to Wikipedia for. Mine was largely to learn in topics that I want to understand. Occasionally will dive into causes like climate change efforts and understanding politics that impacts my own country of Australia, but most of my efforts on wiki would be reserved for articles that I am interested in, and try to generally avoid what I see as meaningless trivial debates on whether to allow in info, or not.

And even if Wikipedia would suddenly go kaput overnight, I like to think my own experience at Wikipedia will still had been very worth it - as I have gained a lot of understanding and knowledge in the process of editing. I think editing is most enjoyable when you are primarily doing it for intrinsic reasons. And if you edit and learn through your editing, and feel you are also doing something meaningful (help others learn) - then you are on the right track in my book.