|
|
|
|
they
he or she | This user considers the singular they to be substandard English usage. |
|
|
This user believes that anyone who thinks Wikipedia is an unreliable source should continue their quest to find a better website.
|
|
|
|
 | This user has been
meaning to join the
Procrastinators' Club
for several years. |
|
| This user has just wasted both their time and yours placing this userbox on their profile, because it says absolutely nothing important, interesting or relevant to anything. | LOL |
|
 | This user has been on Wikipedia for 7 years, 7 months and 19 days. |
|
Time (CST)
13:47, May 8, 2024 CDT [refresh]
Current Projects[edit]
A list of the projects I have been largely involved with in recent time
Drafts
-
Articles
-
Other
- Chicago Cubs Userbox
Harry Otter is a new user on Wikipedia. While this is not the user's first account, it is her latest and has existed since 2016. Her username is a parody of the title of the user's favorite book series. She edits Wikipedia occasionally, but primarily just reads Wikipedia. The user can be contacted via her talk page.
Beliefs[edit]
- Notability on Wikipedia is misinterpreted
It is widely believed by contributors on Wikipedia that notability is how important an article is. However, a subject matter does not have to be "important" to warrant an article on Wikipedia. The subject matter just must have reliable sources independent of itself in order to be deemed notable.
After noticing how many articles were being turned down for "lack of notability" when they had independent third party sources, HarryOtter decided to label herself as an inclusionist. By labeling herself as an inclusionist, the user holds the belief that when an article is well-written and meets Wikipedia guidelines, it should be accepted, regardless of how "important" a reviewer thinks it is.
- Wikipedia is an excellent source for verifiable, factual information
While the user only recently decided to contribute to Wikipedia, she used it regularly prior to contributing, believing that Wikipedia was an excellent source when wanted factual, verifiable information from several sources was necessary. The user holds the belief that the information on Wikipedia is often reliable and verifiable and that if the article is well-written, references should be cited, and information presented in the article may be double-checked. The user is widely quoted in saying that Wikipedia is updated more regularly than any other print encyclopedia and may, in some ways, be more factual.
Specifics on Inclusionism[edit]
I added this section because on June 1st, 2017, I nominated an article, Aptakisic Junior High School, for deletion for the first time. You can see the now closed discussion concerning it right here. I provided adequate reasoning for its deletion there, and it was the ultimate consensus that the article should be redirected. That being said, I will not go into more detail about any article in particular, but I will explain my rationale for my departure from extreme inclusionism.
I came to believe in inclusionism when an article I had worked hard on using a prior account had been deleted, and I didn't want other articles to go down the way the one I worked on did. Prior to this learning time, I could imagine very few circumstances in which I did not apply my beliefs in inclusionism. Since then, I've not been contributing as much, instead focusing on learning more about Wikipedia's structure. Now, while I still consider myself an inclusionist, and abide by the same belief you can see in the section above, I truly believe the content coming out of Wikipedia needs to be consistent, factual, and verifiable. This will mean both contributing more and improving my contributions, but it will also mean occasionally aiding in the deletion of articles.
Note In my beliefs, when discussing inclusionism, I mentioned that I believed in it when the articles considered for deletion "had independent third party sources", were "well-written", and met Wikipedia's guidelines. While I have called my inclusionism at that time extreme, I would like to note that I still believe in that statement. I have not changed my viewpoint, but I have attempted to expand on it.
