H tan H epi tas

I have been an occasional contributor to a few Wikipedia articles through my IP in the past. I decided to create this account since I got into an edit-dispute and noticed that casual IP contributions are scuffed at, despite the fact that an IP is a more open and honest signature than a pseudonymous username.

When I tried to make my first contribution by adding a two-line update to an article in good-faith providing valid references, my edit was reverted promptly and soon I was wrongly accused of edit-warring, refspam, being against Wikipedia rules, I was inundated with Wikipedia jargon, and generally I was bullied by a couple of unqualified hobbyists, self-proclaimed "generalists" and "autodidacts" who will edit no matter what without the slightest responsibility. I try to only edit material I feel educated about. To some, Wikipedia has become the arena to overcome their complexes for lack of formal education.

Some of the reasons Wikipedia is getting scuffed at by teachers and academics are, as described by Mark E. Moran here:

1. Individuals with agendas sometimes have significant editing authority.
2. There is little diversity among editors.
3. The number of active Wikipedia editors has flatlined...
4. ... because it has become harder for casual participants to contribute. The contributions of casual and new contributors are being reversed at a much greater rate than several years ago. The result is that a steady group of high-level editors has more control over Wikipedia than ever. A group of editors known as “deletionists” “edit first and ask questions later,” making it harder for new contributors to participate, and making it harder for Wikipedia—which, again, aspires to provide “the sum of all human knowledge”—to overcome the issue that it is controlled by a stagnant pool of editors from a limited demographic.
5. Accurate contributors can be silenced. Deletionists on Wikipedia often rely on the argument that a contribution comes from an “unreliable source,” with the editor deciding what is reliable. An incident last year showed the degree to which editors at the very top of Wikipedia were willing to rely on this crutch when it suits their purpose.

This must stop now.