 | This user contributes to Wikidata, the free knowledge base. |
| 37% | This user has been a Wikipedian for 37.3% of his life. |
 | This user has been editing Wikipedia for more than 15 years. |
 | A fact from the article Oleg Bogayev, which this user created or significantly contributed to, has been featured in the Did you know... section on the Main Page. |
 | A fact from the article Mary Jobe Akeley, which this user created or significantly contributed to, has been featured in the Did you know... section on the Main Page. |
| A fact from the article Antonia Franceschi, which this user created or significantly contributed to, has been featured in the Did you know... section on the Main Page. |
| A fact from the article Robyn Benincasa, which this user created or significantly contributed to, has been featured in the Did you know... section on the Main Page. |
| A fact from the article Alice King Chatham, which this user created or significantly contributed to, has been featured in the Did you know... section on the Main Page. |
| A fact from the article Deborah Zoe Laufer, which this user created or significantly contributed to, has been featured in the Did you know... section on the Main Page. |
|
I am a librarian at Miami University, and a lot of my work on Wikipedia is an outgrowth of my work as a librarian. My most notable contributions are included on this page: User:Kenirwin/CV.
Wittenberg 2018 Feminist Edit-a-thon
edit
Joe Janes on Wikipedia
edit
With Wikipedia, it’s never quite so sure – you can’t access the same Wikipedia twice, not only because the reality it’s trying to represent is changing, it’s changing as well. It’s one thing to know that the world changes, it’s another not to be able to find the same fact again, maybe because it’s not a fact any more, or because some editor or committee or flame warrior decided it shouldn’t be there any more. And don’t even get me started on their preference for verifiability over truth or accuracy.
This seems somehow more arbitrary than the top-down approach, or perhaps just differently arbitrary; it’s either one expert’s judgment, bias, prejudice, with an editorial infrastructure to catch or to reinforce it, or it’s lots of people with varying judgments and biases, axes to grind, who somehow have to come to consensus on what’s what.
- Any old thing that catches my attention
Articles I might write
edit
Other things to work on
edit
.png){kind=spacer}
