User talk:EngineerEd

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia, EngineerEd. I noticed you're enthusiastic about editing the article about the September 11, 2001 attacks. I should let you know, it's a pretty controversial topic, so make sure to keep a cool head. I predict that you're going to run into one frustration in particular while editing that page: your edits, while scientifically sound, are very likely to get removed as having no citations, or being original research. Even if you know a thing to be true, even if you can explain the truth of a thing (as you did on the 9/11 attacks talk page), your edits will still probably be removed from any article you're editing, especially one as heated as the 9/11 article. Unfortunately, a lot of experts in various fields often come to Wikipedia and enter information which is factually correct and which really does benefit the article, but their information gets removed because it lacks sources and, frustrated, those experts leave the project. I want to do what I can to keep that from happening with you.

Why we require citations

Lemme lay out for you why Wikipedia requires citations for everything. Articles require citations so that there's a base line of credibility for things written on Wikipedia. You know you're an engineer, and I'm certainly willing to believe you, but it just doesn't really say much for the credibility of the article if it says "the collapse of the World Trade Center towers can be explained thusly, which we have on the word of a semi-anonymous editor who claims to be an engineer." Through trial, error, and general consensus, we've determined as a community that the best way for the encyclopedia to have any credibility is to be based on widely available secondary sources -- books, public reports, newspaper articles, and, of course, the internet (mostly news sites, though a wide range of sites are used for a variety of different topics). Experts and others who are well educated on various topics find it frustrating that they can't simply state things they know to be true, even when they went to school for four or eight or twelve years. Everything needs to be published elsewhere to be included here.

How you can help as an expert in your field

Does this mean that Wikipedia doesn't appreciate your background and education in this field? No, it doesn't mean that. Your understanding of these issues is still very valuable to the project. So, where does that leave you? Well, while you can't directly share your expertise without citations backing you up, you're still at a great advantage in terms of content review and creation. First, of course, you'll be much better at screening material that is false and lacks citations or is misleadingly worded. And in terms of content creation, you're better equipped to read published works (such as the NIST report on 9/11, for instance), and, making direct reference to those documents, contribute to articles. You'll also be able to know where to look for such matericals in the first place, which should aid both any citation-finding you might do for the project, and means that you would be able to make suggestions to other people if they're looking for information in your field of expertise.

I hope this clears up our rules about citations and sharing your expertise with the Wikipedia project -- if you have any questions about this or any other facet of editing the Wiki, please don't hesitate to drop me a line. Again, welcome to Wikipedia. JDoorj a m Talk 02:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Truthseeker

Interesting you think Ed deserves a barnstar Huysman. I think he's a fake. Not one citation, nothing. TruthSeeker1234 07:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly; time will tell if my barnstar was premature. However, the fact remains that 9/11 conspiracy theories are false. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribsFile:Poisoned Icon.jpg 15:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just because your findings and expertise are not in Truthseeker's favor. I say the barnstar was well earned. Keep up the good work! --Physicq210 05:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, maybe it's because I am a sockpuppet, and I completely made up the stuff about the Fuji Towers. EngineerEd 00:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Request an unblock if you are not. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my statement. I have been deceived by your utmost incivility. --Physicq210 23:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too retract my barnstar. - Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 23:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]