User:Iacobus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I realized with horror that I hadn't erected a User Page in my honour. I therefore rectify this and give due obesience to myself.

Very brief info about me - I am an Australian male in my late 30s, with general knowledge about many things (I hate maths), and an interest in things historical.

I once tried to construct a web site about the Renaissance artist Paolo Uccello, which never quite got done. I am putting my expertise to use by working on the Wikipedia article, although progress is slow (ie. I am a procrastinator).

It is hard, when you put a lot into an article, not to be sad when people alter or delete your contributions. Of course, that is the nature of Wikipedia, and I like the policy of being bold - if I think your edit is stupid or doesn't contribute much, I will alter or delete it. (of course, you may think the same about my contributions!)

[edit] What I Like about Wikipedia

Better start by being positive!

• Lots of information, much of it obscure and detailed. I really get off on some of the historical pages about the most obscure people and events.

• There is some very high quality content here. It's great when people who love their subject area, are very knowledgable about it, and are good writers, contribute. Maybe that will be me one day? (golly, please!)

• Anyone can contribute - or, more to the point, I can contribute. I love adding just one hard-won fact to an article. My favourite instance was idly reading some British law reports at work (desperate), and finding a case that concerned Harold Godwinson's burial place. So I added it to Wikipedia.

• It is a great way to wile away boring moments at work. And to fill my coffee and lunch breaks.

[edit] What I Dislike About Wikipedia

• Bad English, poor expression, bad grammar, mis-spelling - only excusable if someone is not a native English-speaker. I especially hate copy that looks like it was written by American teenagers.

• People getting really intense in the discussion pages about nationalistic issues, etc. Just the kind of stuff that warped nineteenth century European historiography is now peddled by people contesting scholarly consensus in Wikipedia articles. Go to any article discussion page related to an emerging nation to see what I mean. This extends to people getting too precious or personal in the discussion pages.

• Overly-technical article introductions. Can we have some English before we plunge into jargon? Many scientific-related articles err with this.

• The mass-dumping of 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica articles into Wikipedia. There are at least two web sites devoted to Britannica 1911, so why does it have to be duplicated in Wiki? Not to mention the fact thay they often violate Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. This goes for anyone relying on out-of-copyright sources on the internet to insert obsolete facts or quotes into Wikipedia.

• Copyright. Actually, this isn't Wikipedia's fault at all. I just find it repugnant that someone can own the copyright to a photograph of Michelangelo's Pieta or the Parthenon. Thankfully I seem to have discovered that exact photographic reproductions of out-of-copyright two-dimensional works of art, etc, are not copyrightable under US law.

• Poor research methods. For instance, Wikipedians who rely too much on the Internet for their information. Ever read any books? Or people who rely on some theory they saw on the Discovery Channel (see discussion page of Justinian). Or bogus quotes from ancient or medieval authors.

• The fact that anyone can edit or alter my beautifully crafted and carefully considered prose. Such is life...

The list could go on, and I'm sure it will. Or, in the words of one anonymous genius who decided to edit this page:

-LOL I WAS HERE - some guy :P

'