User:Ryan Paddy

I'm a New Zealander. I'm interested in Wikipedia on several levels. The idea that such a commonly-referred-to and presumably influential reference can be edited by anybody is fascinating. I also find the search for balanced viewpoints inspiring. And the way in which the policies and guidelines are themselves constantly changing with consensus provides a personalised, interactive insight into a process for creating legal fictions, in some ways like those that pervade modern life.

If you'd like to chat then post on my talk page.

Larp

I've been writing and organising larps since 1989. I'm working on the larp article and on other larp-related articles. I've helped the larp article to reach WP:GA status, and would now like to see it reach WP:FA status.

Politics

Controversial political pages are where the good intent of Wikipedia goes into the most testing fire. Blind footsoldiers thrash their nation's propaganda and mythology against those of other nations. The systemic Western bias of an English-language wiki emerge. Yet articles that describe controversial political subjects, while boiling with distemper in the talk pages underneath, still manage to describe the debate somewhat faithfully and survive deletion. While I wouldn't rely on positive outcomes in every such case, I'm impressed that the overall mood of Wikipedia often supports a final result that approaches neutral description, even under trying circumstances.

Fringe science

There's a spectrum of approaches to editing fringe science topics like parapsychology. At one end are the promoters, who want to create the most positive image of their subject of interest. At the other end are the debunkers, who want the opposite. Caught in the middle are the editors who want to follow Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. The promoters and the debunkers sometimes find usable sources that promote their preferred perspective, but their editing is usually unconstructive. They are mirror-images of each other: crusading sceptics and embattled believers, misinterpreting policy to suit their inflexible agendas and spitting the dummy when neutrality conquers dogma. As with political controversy, it's encouraging how well the articles turn out despite such editing.