Editing Philosophy

We are not wikipedia. We do not try to imitate them nor do we want to be like them. We are all volunteers, we are not paid editors so you will never see intrusive begging for money. If we liked how wikipedia worked we would just contribute there. Even when I have followed their rules to a 'T' and cited authoritative sources, my edits have literally all been removed. Bots censor wikipedia.

In addition to the bots censoring content (and overzealous human editors, often paid by industry to monitor certain pages), wikipedia also doesn't allow normal, run of the mill sources, nor expert opinion. We allow both here. If you know something, we want you to add it to the wiki, sources or not! If you want to cite a blog or random internet page, go for it! We are a repository of all knowledge, not only what scientific journals have decided to publish. We also believe the wiki format can take in all perspectives and "shake it out" and bring us closer to the truth, without suppressing certain sources.

If you disagree with what someone wrote before you, we encourage you to add your perspective to the article and try not to erase what someone else said unless you have good reason to. Also feel free to use the talk page to hash out perspectives and perhaps try to come to a consensus, especially before deleting something. Err on the side of adding too much rather than deleting what someone else said.

So, in summary:

  1. You can give your knowledge without citing a source.
  2. If you do want to cite a source, great. Any source will do.
  3. Try not to delete what someone else said, just add your own perspective and/or sources so people can hear all perspectives.


Currently Backlinks don't search group headers (perhaps also footers and whatnot). Not sure why and this is not intended.