User:Pizpa
About Me
Hi there! I've loved Wikipedia since I was a teenager, but my longtime contributions under old accounts fell off when I got a job and had kids. As of July 2024, I'm hoping to get a little more active as life permits. I'm interested in topics ranging from math and statistics to philosophy and social epistemology. I have a current interest in helping Wikipedians be at their best when things get controversial. If you like what you see, or have any questions or comments, don't hesitate to drop me a line on the talk page!
My Essays
Reliable Sourcing Reviews
Reliable sourcing reviews summarize my findings when I investigate controversial claims for compliance against strict WP:RS standards. My goal is to apply journalistic source research and fact-checking methods wherever practical and appropriate, so that proper editorial discretion may be exercised going forward. I am especially interested in claims which are derogatory to living persons and organizations.
- 14 Jul 2024 - Removal of claim that LessWrong "played a role in the development" of Neoreaction. Text derogatory to living persons Robin Hanson and Eliezer Yudkowsky, present from approximately 2019-2024, was determined to be too vague to be verifiable. Even when unverifiably vague claims are repeated in generally reliable news sources, they are unreliable, because claims that are not directly verifiable are not plausibly subject to fact-checking unless supported by verifiable facts. In one news source, there was evidence from tone and categorization within the source itself that the specific cited articles were at least partially analysis or opinion in nature, rather than reporting which might reasonably be presumed to be rigorously fact-checked. Other citations lacked text supportive of the Wiki claim entirely, or presented claims that could be fact-checked by reference to online primary sources and proved highly unlikely to be true. The unverifiably vague derogatory material was replaced with verifiable factual material, which turned out to be less derogatory.
TODO: going forward, consider developing separate user subpages for each RSR to preserve cohesion of the analysis separately from talk page sprawl.
Favorite Essays on Wikipedia
WP:Editorial Discretion
It is not original research to make judgement calls on what content to include or not include, how to frame an issue or claim, or what claims and subjects are suitable for Wikipedia. We are not here to robotically compile facts and citations according to a strict set of rules, we are here to create and edit an encyclopedia. This task requires the application of judgement and discretion in order to create a neutral and readable encyclopedia. The policy on original research is sometimes misconstrued as a blanket prohibition on any application of judgement or critical thinking by editors. The intent of that policy was never to turn editing into an unthinking task, and our articles into mere compilations of published data.
Also contains a wonderful set of links, which I am copying here for convenience.
Links
- Administration - discuses both the human administrative structure of Wikipedia, as well as its non-human components.
- Core content policies – a brief summary and background on Wikipedia's core content policies.
- Editing environment - describes how Wikipedia is governed? What happens when content disputes 'boil over' into accusations of bad conduct?
- Editor integrity - discusses how editors have a responsibility to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia and respect intellectual property rights of the sources they draw upon when they create and improve encyclopedia pages.
- Formal organization - discusses who does what on Wikipedia? What does Wikipedia say itself about its own formal organizational structure?
- The essence of Wikipedia – describes how Wikipedia is the harnessing of the collective intelligence and collaborative efforts of editors who hold opposing points of view, in an attempt to preserve all serious contributions which are reliably sourced.
- The rules are principles - describes how policies and guidelines exist only as rough approximations of their underlying principles.
- Wikipedia is a community - describes how there is nothing wrong with occasionally doing other things than writing the encyclopedia, and that community spirit is a positive thing.
- Wikipedia is a volunteer service - discusses how editors on Wikipedia are mainly volunteers. Editors can contribute as much as they want, and however long they desire.
- When sources are wrong – suggestions for coping with errors in sources