User:Thought

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Babel
en This user is a native speaker of English.
de-1 Dieser Benutzer hat grundlegende Deutschkenntnisse.
grc-1 Ὅδε ὁ χρήστης δύναται συνεισφέρειν ὀλίγῃ γνώσει τῆς ἀρχαίας ἑλληνικῆς.
Search user languages

Educationn

  • Undergraduate Work: History (general)
  • Graduate Work: History, Classical and Medieval
  • Personal/Professional area of focus: Military History and Mythology

I am also familiar with Icelandic and Latin, about to the extent that I can read signs and other such basics, but I cannot converse in them.

Additionally, I can translate old Anglo-Saxon (but there isn't a Babel category for it).

[edit] Primary Functions (out-dated)

I work to ensure quality in Wikipedia entries. This is done primarily through the removal or adjustment of the numerous logical fallacies that plague some entries, specifically those that attempt to provide arguments for both sides of somewhat controversial topics. In many cases this is little more than removing the unreasonable portions while providing a detailed explanation for their removal. However, when possible I adjust such information to conform to scholarly standards.

Read the article on logical fallacies, know them, do not use such fallacious material, elsewise someday we may come face to face (so to say).

Now some might say, "Wikipedia entries aren't arguments but rather informative statements. Such a criterion would invalidate too many articles, or portions of them!" To this I say, know your logical fallacies. A logical fallacy can only be identified when one uses them in one's argument. How can I claim an article uses a bandwagon approach unless it is being used? Well... I could incorrectly identify something, but that is a topic for the discussion page of such topics. And, if it is being used, then is that not an indication that someone is making an argument? Further, if one is making an argument then is that still NPOV information? Thus we reach my point. Entries contain logical fallacies because they contain arguments, which is usually how a POV violation is interjected into an article. A logical fallacy doesn't invalidate information but rather how that information is presented. Remove the biased (and invalid) arguments and you will be left with (hopefully) NPOV information. This is sometimes as easy as citing a valid source. Each fallacy, however, requires different attention.

My own contributions tend to be centered on more informal entries, such as modern literature, video games, and various anachronistic topics.

[edit] Wiki-tivities/Activities

Please see the following link(s) for my /Current Projects Or you know where to click if you want to see my thoughts on /Wikipedia Standards and Etiquette

Articles that I contributed significantly or importantly to:


Articles that I intend to create or edit: