User:Ashujo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello! I am a PhD. student doing research in Computational Chemistry.
I also have a deep and long-standing interest in the history and philosophy of science, especially modern physics. I am also particularly interested in the history of the development of atomic energy.
[edit] Articles
Some articles I have significantly contributed to or am working on:
- Linus Pauling (Featured article)
- Robert B. Woodward
- Robert Oppenheimer (Featured article)
- Hans Bethe
- Enrico Fermi
- Edward Teller
Some of these articles are still imperfect and as and when I get time, I am trying to spruce them up.
Some of the articles I plan to work on:
[edit] My take on Wikipedia
I have no argument with people who support Wikipedia's 'NPOV' (Neutral Point of View) policy, and I myself think that it should be an essential quality of any encyclopaedic article. However, this cannot be well-defined in each and every case. As a result, I think the best way to overcome this problem and avoid perpetual debate is to precisely attribute statements to sources and then let the reader judge their veracity for themselves. However, as much as I hate to say it, I believe that Wikipedia will finally turn out to be a failed effort, albeit a noble one.
In a free encyclopaedia, every well-supported argument (which sometimes DOES look like a POV) should be admitted. After all, unless the situation is obviously extreme or unambiguous, it is very hard to always truly judge the veracity (or lack thereof) of a source. You can keep on quibbling about what you think is a good source and the argument can go on without end. If you are going to impose a unilateral point of view on what goes into an article, how does Wikipedia become a FREE encyclopaedia? I would suggest contributors to respect people's contributions, and unless they are obviously dubious, should not take them out of the article, just because they don't 'look good' to THEM.
However, human nature and ambitions being what they are, I don't think this is going to happen in practice. Users who have a lot of time and patience, would continue to make an entry in Wikipedia THEIR entry. Depending on their proclivity toward Wikipedia, in theory, they could spend an infinite amount of time reverting other users' contributions and making and remaking sure that an entry contains almost exclusively THEIR contribution. Users like me, who don't write for Wikipedia as their profession and don't have all the time in the world for this, will eventually, and wisely, concede to the wishes of these Wikipedia obsessive compulsives. Hence, in the end, every entry will become biased. If this has been the case even for the relatively objective historical entry that I contributed to, I cannot even imagine how the situation will be (and already is) for inherently opionated and contentious entries like Communism, Free Will, Abortion, Gay rights, and even Evolution ;). Given this, I don't think anyone should ever trust an article from Wikipedia the way they would trust an article from an authentic book or similar source. Of course, in every source, no matter how unbiased, there are always biases and points of views. However, at least one "knows" the author and can read up on him, thus knowing his biases too. Secondly, judging by the level of scholarship of the author, one can decide how much to trust him/her. On the other hand, in a free encyclopaedia, a diverse number of contributors abound. Most of these include amateur enthusiasts, mavericks and non-conformists, and finally people who just have too much time to spare in making sure the world hears their words. Once in a while, a scholar may contribute, but his contribution will be lost in the din of the aforementioned characters' biases. In the end the article will hardly be an encyclopaedic article, and will end up being a conglomerate of opinions and POVs.
So, on a somber note, I think that as membership grows, Wikipedia is going to become more and more fuzzy. Wikipedia's founder put it succintly- "The problem with Wikipedia is not that it is necessarily inaccurate, but it is perceived by the public to be inaccurate." The bottom line is that when it comes to Wikipedia or anything similar to it, read all the entries, but with a whole bucket of salt, and not just a pinch! Maybe this just reiterates the maxim that there is no free lunch, but with an extra addendum; if the lunch is truly free, it probably stinks!
[edit] Other interests
My other academic interests include drug design, physical organic and bioorganic chemistry, general organic and biochemistry, quantum chemistry, and most recently, perfumery and olfaction. I am also a physics and mathematics buff, although I am terrible at them!
I am strongly against pseudoscience and like to engage in arguments and write articles about it on my Blog
I am also deeply interested in History (especially American history and history of World War 2), Music, and Literature and general Philosophy. In my spare time, my greatest passion is to play music on my keyboard.
