Has anyone here ever written a lot for Wikipedia?

Nov 2016
1,133
Germany
My contributions to Wikipedia consist of changing all of the BCE and CE to BC and AD. They inevitably get deleted.
You´re kidding, aren´t you? Or are you a special agent of the Catholic Church for cleansing Wikipedia of atheistic elements?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Olleus
Mar 2018
848
UK
I tried writing for Wikipedia, but not much. I admit I do not have sufficient knowledge in many fields of science. But I try. I have some problems with academic papers on anatomy and I would like to ask for help here nursingpaper.org/. Wikipedia doesn't give people complete information, in my opinion. For full knowledge of the issue is better to look for books or individual articles.
It's an encyclopedia. It isn't meant to provide "full knowledge", but just an introduction and enough information so that you know what to look for if you want to delve deeper. Anyway, what does "full knowledge" about a topic even mean anyway?
 
Feb 2019
936
Serbia
I never wrote much for Wikipedia and never considered it as I would have to keep my writing brief and my contributions will inevitably be replaced by someone else who has another source that would contradict with mine. I don't want the info to be brief, I want to be extensive and to provide sufficient context and info so the information could be properly understood.

If I ever start editing I would change all the dates from BCE and CE to BC and AD and fix all the simplified spelling in words such as ''favor'' and edit it to ''favour'' and ''civilization'' to ''civilisation'' :)
 
Jun 2018
536
New Hampshire
You´re kidding, aren´t you? Or are you a special agent of the Catholic Church for cleansing Wikipedia of atheistic elements?
Close. I'm a secret agent of the Baptist Church assigned to cleanse Wikipedia of atheistic elements. I also am assigned to the church's Harry Potter book burning division.

And now that you know my secret...well....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
I never wrote much for Wikipedia and never considered it as I would have to keep my writing brief and my contributions will inevitably be replaced by someone else who has another source that would contradict with mine. I don't want the info to be brief, I want to be extensive and to provide sufficient context and info so the information could be properly understood.

If I ever start editing I would change all the dates from BCE and CE to BC and AD and fix all the simplified spelling in words such as ''favor'' and edit it to ''favour'' and ''civilization'' to ''civilisation'' :)
I thought that Wikipedia articles could be long? For instance, my Wikipedia article here is pretty long :):

William Jennings Bryan 1908 presidential campaign - Wikipedia
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
Close. I'm a secret agent of the Baptist Church assigned to cleanse Wikipedia of atheistic elements. I also am assigned to the church's Harry Potter book burning division.

And now that you know my secret...well....
I thought that there were few Baptists in New Hampshire?
 
Feb 2019
936
Serbia
I thought that Wikipedia articles could be long? For instance, my Wikipedia article here is pretty long :):

William Jennings Bryan 1908 presidential campaign - Wikipedia
It gets better, just look at this: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington - Wikipedia

Still, this doesn't even scratch the surface of Wellington. It is still brief and can't compare to a book, let alone many dozens of books required to have sufficient knowledge and context on all of the info presented.

With Wikipedia, as with any encyclopedia: if you're using it the way you think you should be using it (Read raw articles.) you're using it wrong. You should use it to refresh your memory, to check a source for reliability etc. and follow the citations to actually find real sources and expand knowledge that way. It's a compilation of sources that opens up a way for further reading, not a raw source of information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist and Tulius