User:Nahum Reduta
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Nahum Reduta
|
||||||||||
|
I am one of Wikipedia's many "vagrant" editors, making improvements as I come across them during normal browsing.
Contents |
[edit] The trail of thought
Ever since I was a kid, I was fascinated with how I arrived upon a particular thought. It is often that I think of something, which triggers a related thought, onward until I realize that what I am thinking at the moment has nothing to do with my original situation. With the arrival of Wikipedia and tabbed browsers, this phenomenon takes a distinctly visible form as I watch the tab bar fill with WP pages, wondering as I did back then how each trip led to the next.
At the moment, I'm surprised that I haven't yet found a description of the phenomenon on WP, sure as I am that many others have experienced the same.
[edit] Why I don't like research
I'm sure there is a better term to describe this: attempting to support an argument through research-like activity rather than creating said argument from the research gathered. Honestly, I don't like doing research. Though I've come to appreciate the techniques and thinking applied, I am an intuitionist at heart.
It troubles me to think that in order to academically prove a sentiment of mine, I have to do the equivalent of finding people that agree with me. The further along I get, the more I realize that the sentiment maybe wasn't my own to begin with. I also begin to realize that I don't care at all for the people that support my statements, nor for those who spoke against me or provided no help at all. Then "human knowledge" to me begins to lose its humanity—the creation has stolen away, declaring itself master.
I tend to envy those great thinkers, the philosophers of our age. Right or wrong, they have been given ownership of an idea, as if no one before them had thought the same. Is it no longer possible to have an original thought? Have we truly exhausted the mystery of all things?
I'll…have to research that.
[edit] On Wikipedia and education
It occurs to me that Wikipedia is essentially one huge, interconnected research project. Despite this, many academic institutions do not accept content from Wikipedia. Rather than discarding such a resource, academia would do well to realize that they are in an ideal position to improve Wikipedia (even if they still cannot accept its use). Students who are instructed in proper research technique (which incidentally, I was not until college!) should be encouraged to contribute to Wikipedia. Because of many features built into WP, such as talk pages and editing histories, instructors can even utilize WP in their curricula.
I wonder if I can use this as a paper topic…
[edit] On writing Anonymous
I just wanted to thank everyone who has shown interest in Anonymous (group), whether they liked what they saw or otherwise. I began writing the article in direct response to the recent Project Chanology protests, but knew of Anonymous' prior existence. I do feel that it is a significant, yet poorly documented presence—if I did not feel it was worthy of inclusion into Wikipedia, I would not have started it.
I knew early on that writing Anonymous was going to be a challenge. Gathering non-news sources was particularly problematic (I hope that the article does not reference only journalistic material). I admit that my first effort was not perfectly written—that's where you all come in. Many of you know a lot more about Anonymous, even if you aren't privy to its underpinnings. You are the ones I expected to expand and improve the article. If not, then people like the ones who proposed this article's deletion will only help spread ignorance. Unlike the generations before us, events that matter to us don't wait for things like academic notability; they happen faster than even we are capable of realizing.
