user:ImperfectlyInformed

Anyone encountering my user page is most likely already aware of the flaws in Wikipedia, Mediawiki, and the Wikimedia movement. As of 2015, these include a toxic and divided community, antiquated software, and declining or at best plateaued participation. I prefer optimism (my original username was OptimistBen): quality continues to improve incrementally, we continue to have a core group of active users, and software iteration is slowly occurring (check out [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/ Wikimedia Phabricator] and particularly the [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/sprint/ current sprint list]). Regardless of problems and inevitable variations in my ability to actively contribute, I am committed to this project and I hope you are too.

I've been hanging around this place since 2007. I generally work on articles that I consider "core" to a traditional encyclopedia in a broad range of topics including law, economics, medicine and science, environmental issues, and software although I don't necessarily have expertise in these topics. For example, as of 2015 I'm responsible for most of tort, and I'm not a lawyer. These types of articles are too complex to easily get to "good" quality, so I've been satisfied with iterative improvements. When I make an edit, I try to introduce at least one citation and make the edit reasonably substantive.

Much of the discussion and rapid-fire editing on Wikipedia happens in lightly-trafficked controversial articles, which is why you'll find that my list of top-edited articles shows various odd fringe topics even though these might be mostly reverts or tweaks to head off nasty disputes leading to ArbCom. I like to think I'm dispassionate, but everyone who edits an article has some interest and opinion on the topic.

Due to a career pivot from finance in 2015, I'm a software developer in San Francisco. Between work, side projects, and recreation, my time for Wikipedia is unfortunately limited - but I expect to free up time, over time.

When I edit articles, I try to abide by certain ground rules and sometimes introduce the idea on talk pages. These aren't mandatory and no doubt I don't follow them 100%, but they could make things simpler and easier for future generations:

• Use descriptive edit summaries. Whenever you add/remove a reference, say so and why. If you add/remove a bunch, consider discussing the change in the talk page. Quantify the number of references added/removed if feasible.
• If you want to edit two sections, edit the entire page. Deleting material in one edit and adding it in the next makes it more difficult to review differences.
• When you use a citation, put it directly behind the distinct fact rather than stacking it at the end of a paragraph. If you add a sentence with several major facts sourced to the same article and that article is not freely-available, you may want to cite each fact rather than just sticking it at the end of the paragraph. Otherwise you risk your information being deleted.
• I start out my research on a given topic at Google Scholar. I always look through the sources that are available on there first. If it's freely-available on Google Scholar but perhaps illegally hosted, it is still better than not available online at all. I sometimes add such hosted articles; it might be technically illegal but I think the way the academic publishing industry takes scholars' copyrights is dubious at best.
• Most people understand verifiability, but remember to learn about the somewhat more complex policies neutral point of view and original research.

{{User in San Francisco}}

{{User Software Engineer}}

{{User Fifteen Year Society| (since 2007)}}

Category:WikiProject Agriculture participants

Category: WikiProject Economics participants

Category:Members of the Fifteen Year Society of Wikipedia editors