User:Jvol

I am fascinated by the idea of Wikipedia, and by watching the process of evolution of articles.

• *

just getting the hang. have added to two articles.

User:Seth_Ilys/Trifecta

• *

Seth's entry is still more or less true. I've actually done several edits now, tho still getting some of the finer points.

I've gone back to 'liberal democracy' several times now, as its a topic that evolves quickly, everybody has an opinion. First motivated to edit because I noticed a (racial?) bias in the listing of examples - all white-people places! I expanded and generalized the list, noticed later that my generalizations had been editted out but that some of the specific examples from Asia, etc had been left in, so pretty much left it at that. (tho i did throw in a couple more specifics) Another more subtle aspect of bias I noticed there was that of seeing the American system presented as the pinnacle of possible evolution of liberal democracy. While the US is generally considered a liberal democracy, its particulars reflect a rather creaky system that in most respects has not been updated for 200 years - making it now the oldest government on earth, now behind the forefront of political evolution. (Since 1789, every other nation has emerged from colonialism, suffered coups or revolutions, or had significant power shifted from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional/ceremonial one.) While there are ongoing arguments for and against paliamentary systems vs presidential ones, no modern political scientist defends the electoral college. Another serious weakness: three or more choices among viable parties is a clearly a broader field than two (just as two are broader than one), offering an undisputably broader range of choices, resulting in a government that, on average, more closely represents the will of its people. Therefore, the fact that the United States is at present an enfoced two-party system is also indication of backwardness. My original edit aimed at countering this bias has since been re-editted, but other voices have since added more variety. I'm still watching..

• *

I've added a field the chart of national governments - Date of Origin. this is because I have several times been part of conversations -in person and online- debating what the oldest governments are. debate as to what constitutes an 'origin' will make this an interesting place to watch. (or maybe I'm just a gov't-geek)

• *

In early Sept 07 I created a new (biographical) page. As I know he's a controversial public figure, I kept it extremely minimal (two paragraphs) and very carefully neutral (no opinions expressed about his actions or stance). Article has since been entirely deleted, and I can find no references anywhere in wikipedia as to what happened or why, even though I have read elsewhere on the net that there are such discussions ongoing somewhere on wikipedia. The fact that an author cannot find such discussion less than a month after the original writing -I've checked a dozen help pages and tried several kinds of searches- is an indication that perhaps some change in transparency of process is in order.

As of March 2009 I have still been given no clue as to what happened to the page I created that was deleted. This is causing me to doubt the validity of the wikipedia process. Why was I given no notification? why is there no readily apparent way to access whatever ongoing conversations there may be about a topic that is obviously controversial? Based on the evidence so far, I can only conclude that the mechanisms of wikipedia allow for total blackout censorship, anonymously, with no method of appeal (nor clarity as to whom an appeal would be made). I was once a fervent supporter of wikipedia. But this is *very * disturbing.

August 2009 - I have seen a (very minimal) reason for deletion presented: 'participated in only one significant event' - but i disagree (and the editor did not sound unbiased), yet I see no wiki process to participate in, in which to present evidence. (if anyone who reads this can help, please do) Therefore, I still think significant improvement in transparency/notification in wikipedia's resolution process is in order. I continue to research, will pursue this as time permits.

• *

Notes about my edit history:

pattern: When I get involved in an art project or local community project, I tend to get very focused, leaving little time for other activities. Rather than do edits with little forethought, I tend to refrain from editing during these periods. Availability of internet access is also a factor – esp when I'm traveling for long periods (longest: 18 months). These factors are reflected in my edit record – bursts of activity alternate with quiet periods. I believe the net effect is to make me a better editor, not less so.

length of record: I'm a carpenter and performer, not a professional editor. I contributed/editted for more than a year before noting the existence of wikipedia accounts, much longer before I saw any purpose in having one. between this and occasionally forgetting to log in, history of several hundred of my edits has been lost. I imagine I'm not the only one. I think there should be a statement, made very visible to users, to the effect that it may be good for them to have a record, encouraging them to form accounts early.

• *