Wikipedia

Andrew Lancaster

Joined 5 August 2005
Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury

Thomas Hobbes, De Corpore. From the opening lines:

For from the beginning there were vines and ears of corn growing here and there in the fields; but no care was taken for the planting and sowing of them. Men lived therefore upon acorns; or if any were so bold as to venture upon the eating of those unknown and doubtful fruits, they did it with danger of their health. In like manner, every man brought Philosophy, that is, Natural Reason, into the world with him; for all men can reason to some degree, and concerning some things: but where there is need of a long series of reasons, there most men wander out of the way, and fall into error for want of method, as it were for want of sowing and planting, that is, of improving their — reason. And from hence it comes to pass, that they who content themselves with daily experience, which may be likened to feeding upon acorns and either reject, or not much regard philosophy, are commonly esteemed, and are, indeed, men of sounder judgment than those who, from opinions, though not vulgar, yet full of uncertainty, and carelessly received, do nothing but dispute and wrangle, like men that are not well in their wits.

Put simply, we can do better than acorns for lunch.

My editing (What I think)

edit

You might notice me working on poor quality articles, and not bringing them up to A standard. It might be unusual that I tend to prioritize my Wikipedia work based on what seems to be...

  • in a poor condition
  • not being worked on already in any way which is giving progress
  • a topic people are likely to look up and want to know about

Although this sounds logical it is in practice apparently not a way of prioritizing which is common or highly valued on Wikipedia. In contrast, many good Wikipedians like to keep score of the articles they bring to perfection, or that they start from nothing. For articles stuck between those two phases there seems to be less love, and even some revulsion. Many important but bad articles seem to get stuck just because an awkward discussion or a bit of grunt work with complicated sources was needed to make a breakthrough.

Having said all that in recent years I have tried to polish up a few articles myself, because some topics just don't attract many editors.

Wikipedia "vision"

edit

I am basically happy with the "philosophy" which has evolved for Wikipedia, including for example WP:IAR and the three core content policies.

The way I see it we have given ourselves an imperfect but DOABLE mission of summarizing the best publications.

Of course this DOES connect us to things "mainstream" and "academic", and I fully admit that this means we are not really unbiased even though we try to be.

AIMING at neutrality accuracy (even "the truth") is good. Telling ourselves that we should be neutral about bias and inaccuracy would make Wikipedia worse.

HOWEVER we can NEVER achieve perfect neutrality or perhaps accuracy. Committing ourselves to aim at perfection and nothing less is impractical, because impossible.

I think summarizing the most respected publications is a very worthwhile mission which we can achieve as a largescale wiki.

Trying to do better than that would inevitably require pseudo-academic, and we are NOT good at that here. Academia already exists, and we are not offering a better option.

I am happy we did not go in the hierarchical or peer-reviewed direction in order to TRY to be better than mainstream publications. I am happy that we don't try to be "fair" by giving place to popular online theories.

On the other hand, to be very honest, I think it is ALSO fine that some people try making other types of Wikis. It would even be great if people come up with an online "academia".

So far, no other wikis have worked as well as Wikipedia, but if they ever do (for example using AI) then it will probably use Wikipedia and build on it to some extent. We will also be able to use it, hopefully.

The more online communities are working on such things, the better! But this one is a really important one because it is actually useful and practical.

Sometimes people like it when I do stuff

edit
The Original Barnstar
For recent work on some philosophy articles. bodnotbod (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The E=mc² Barnstar
Great job with Human Genetic History articles Moxy (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The Guidance Barnstar
To one of the best editors here in wiki, for your guidance in genetic related articles. Aigest (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
Thank you for finding a reliable source for that sentence on James Cook, your contributions to WP:RSN are very much appreciated. Once again - thanks. George2001hi (Discussion) 13:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
:) Lives forever Taken (talk) 09:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
You definitely deserve one of these for your hard work in trying to resolve this dispute. Above and beyond the call... Yunshui 雲‍水 11:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Andrew,

A cup for clarity! You would perhaps like this a little more if you are a tea to-taller.

With respect to your message here

Thanks.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 13:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for your work Lgbtoz (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I just hopped on to the article Common sense and was pleased to see how much you've developed it. Great work!
—Tom Morris (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
For your reasonable and intelligent contributions. JS (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
The Green Award
For Protecting and Improving Environment through Your Article Nature.Rukn950 (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar
For your tireless work, often alone, and prudent decision making. In aggregate, your transformation of Germanic peoples into a balanced and enlightening page is truly inspiring. Keep up the good work! Calthinus (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar
Thank you so much for your help and civility in discussing Evolution's short description! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
The Neutral Barnstar
The Neutral Barnstar may be awarded to editors that have fixed articles that did not adhere to WP:NPOV.
For consistently neutral, policy-compliant editing and balanced dispute resolution, plus a welcoming attitude toward newcomers. Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft Stuff

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Andrew_Lancaster&oldid=1364092261"