User:Robth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am a Wikipedia custodian (a phrase I stole from Quadell, who got it from Moink). If you need something done that requires administrative tools, feel free to let me know; I'll be glad to help you out.
[edit] Me
I'm from St. Louis, Missouri, and I'm currently at school in New England. I'm a history major, with something of a focus on ancient history, and a longtime military history buff. I've also spent a great deal of time (since 6th grade!) studying Latin, and I love translating it, although there isn't much use for that around here.
I'm also a serious backpacker, and a leader for my school's outdoors club. I'm something of a handyman, and spend a great deal of time fixing things. With reference to that last, Wikipedia's appeal to me is fairly obvious.
Oh, and I am a "he", if it wasn't clear already. The name's Rob.
[edit] Me on Wikipedia
I've been a registered Wikipedian since the start of November '05, and a serious contributor since January '06. Though I didn't come here with this in mind, I've spent most of my time here working on ancient Greek history articles.
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
Over time, I've gotten involved in a number of different aspects of Wikipedia. There's enough work that needs doing around here to keep anyone busy. Below is a list of the things I spend the most time on:
- First and foremost, I write articles. I have been the primary contributor to four featured articles, Epaminondas, Thrasybulus, Corinthian War, and Theramenes; of those, Theramenes was a runner up in Danny's third contest. I've also done serious work on a lot of other articles, mostly Ancient Greece-related. A list of articles that I have started or rewritten can be found on the subpage that I maintain to keep track of them. In my article work, I'm a big believer in meticulous referencing and use of citations, which I believe is not only the best way to improve Wikipedia's reliability but also the next step towards realizing the potential of electronic media to enrich the organization and presentation of information.
- Lately, I have been getting involved over at Wikisource, working to increase the number of ancient historical sources available there and to take advantage of the potential for mutual support and enhancement of Wikisource sources and Wikipedia articles. There's a lot of great potential here, and we're just getting started, so stay posted...
- The cleanup queue is a great place to find articles that need a lot of help. When I really feel like rolling up my sleeves and working some seriously troubled articles in shape, I help out with the articles that have been tagged for over a year. You should too—the number of cleanup tagged articles has been getting nothing but bigger for over a year now, but with enough work, we could turn it around.
- There's always work to do on the copyright problems page, and I try to do my share. Same goes for the replaceable fair use images pages; newly disputed fair use images are also a good place to pitch in.
- Reviewing articles on featured article candidates or peer review can be a lot of fun. I've seen articles make great strides with the help of reviewers on those pages. When I'm working over there, I make suggestions, check citations for accuracy, and copyedit articles that need help with their prose.
- I have access to a very large library, and I'm happy to help with any research requests people have. Ancient history is my specialty, but I can do most academic subjects. If you need to check a fact and don't have access to the necessary book yourself, drop me a line and I'll see what I can do.
- Several users have given me awards for contributing in these various ways; you can see them here.
[edit] Thoughts
[edit] Cleanup
- It became necessary to destroy the article in order to save it...
Articles that reach the back end of the cleanup queue generally need a lot of fixing. As a non-expert in almost all subjects, the best thing I can do, in many cases, is to clear the way for more knowledgable contributors to come along and work on the article. Really bad articles can actively obstruct further development of a topic by scaring off contributors; if an article in its current form can't be salvaged, I will stubbify, redirect, merge mercilessly, or do whatever else seems necessary to clear the way for future development.
[edit] Article flow
I've referred to this in the past as my "big thing." One of the weaknesses of a collaboratively written article is that transitions from section to section are often awkward, and the order of presentation can become illogical as people add information at varying points. When I'm writing, I try to make articles tell a story, with clear, logical reasons for why each section comes where it does. This is a good thing to think about whenever you're doing major work on a multi-section article.
[edit] Other things
To be added as I think of them.
- The Wikipedia system as it currently exists is tremendously quick at adding stuff—information, disinformation, facts, fluff, whatever else—to articles. It is substantially slower at converting that stuff into well-written and orderly articles, and it is slower yet at providing clear and easily checkable citations for it. Any changes that speed the latter two processes, even at the cost of impeding the first, will ultimately be beneficial to the encyclopedia.
- I used to be in the administrators open to recall category, but looking at the latest implementation of a recall petition convinced me that that approach was way too bureaucratic. If I do something stupid, tell me, or bop me on the nose with a rolled up magazine (it works on my dog). If it ever seems that I've really lost touch (i.e. I'm doing stuff that seems sensible to me but completely loony to a number of sensible people), I'll be happy to step down.
 |
|
