Hello. I’m a scientist with expertise in spinal cord physiology and space biomedicine. As an author, most of my publications have been in scientific peer-reviewed journals. These tend to have strict guidelines with regard to structure and the content is quite technical in nature. In reference to grammar and organization of material, style requirements can vary between journals (e.g, Chicago, AP, APA, and MLA). I say this because some of my experience writing for these publications may spill over into Wikipedia world. This isn’t a bad thing, but it is how my brain has been trained to work.
With Wikipedia articles, I try to follow whatever style is being used. The major exception is the Oxford comma — if it’s not already being used, I will change it. In addition to peer-reviewed journal articles, I’ve also written scientific book chapters. As you would expect, any book should carry a uniform style from chapter to chapter in order to become a cohesive unit. Depending on the book (e.g., encyclopedia vs. textbook), the content tends not to be as technical when compared to a peer-reviewed journal article.
I enjoy updating Wikipedia articles because as I read them, my mind automatically goes into “edit mode”. My interests vary greatly and I tend to read a wide variety of content. When I come across something that I feel could be said in a “better” way (i.e., grammatically better or making the article feel like a single unit), I like to be able to change it.
My goal is to make entries more readable and to contribute relevant information as it becomes available. I’m not interested in editing wars, which do happen if someone else feels ownership over a particular page. If I feel I can contribute in a meaningful way, I will; if someone disagrees with me, I generally do not care — who has time for that?
Please let me know if you’d like to discuss anything I’ve changed. I’m happy to have a conversation. Happy editing!
