User talk:JD April

Hello, JD April, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Gaismagorm (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

AntiDionysius (talk) 17:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you intend to mention *which* page I edited with this contentious status?

Because the only page I've edited is my own user page. Why are you watching my user page? JD April (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't watching your user page, but I stumbled upon it because your edits to it (like all edits to every page) appear in the log of recent changes. Since you've been writing about US politics on your user page and said that you intend to edit articles related to that, I dropped this notice here. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Understood. You see my confusion given the first sentence in the template. I'm given the impression that my user page is "related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious."

I was almost flattered to so quickly receive this designation.

Thanks for explaining, and have a wonderful day! JD April (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Having read your user page, and coming from a political background (I imagine) at least as far to the left as you, I had some thoughts which I think could be useful (but which you should of course ignore if my input is unwanted):

1. Wikipedia editors are asked, as a matter of policy, to assume at first that everyone else genuinely wants to contribute to and improve the encyclopaedia and is not behaving maliciously, because it's almost always true. Announcing ahead of time that you assume others are engaging in "gatekeeping and censorship as forms of social influence...misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda that perpetuates conformity and perceptions of out-group homogeneity" and that you assume your edits will "be reverted" is probably not the best way to begin, and the latter part may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you come in expecting to end up in fights, you'll probably end up in fights. If you come in with the intention of figuring out a way to work alongside others and convincing them of the necessity of your edits, that's more likely to happen.
2. I'd advise having a quick look at the page on "tendentious editing"; there is a fine line between a project of improving a specific aspect of Wikipedia and being on a disruptive crusade. If you are perceived by the community to be on the latter side of the line, whether or not that perception is correct or fair, you may be blocked, which I think would be a bad thing.
3. I think (and maybe you disagree) that it would be better for you to be here and be contributing than to have your edits reverted so you can "document" it. You are absolutely correct that more use of independent sources and less overwhelming reliance on legacy media would make Wikipedia better. You could help make that happen; add those sources, contribute to community discussions etc. I think that would be very valuable.

On the other hand, documentation of the perceived problems with Wikipedia is unlikely to move the needle much. Lots of people have written such content, from a wide variety of political viewpoints. Yet Wikipedia remains, rightly or wrongly, one of the most-visited and most-trusted websites on the internet, and that doesn't appear likely to change any time soon. So personally, I'm about trying to make it better.

Anyway, again, feel free to disregard. I'm just some schmuck. But I am an anarchist who's been around here a while. AntiDionysius (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I realize that my personal notes -- drawn from years of observing Wikipedia’s communities and sourcing practices -- may appear to some as assumptions. But what I’ve recorded is based on repeated firsthand experiences where certain types of information were reverted. My goal isn’t to speculate, but to understand how systemic biases persist in political coverage, and whether there’s a way to balance them on the seventh most-visited website in the world.

I appreciate your emphasis on collaboration and your caution regarding contentious topics. Still, I hadn’t expected that my rough, unfinished notes -- on my own user page, before making any article edits -- would receive such close attention. I hope this doesn’t reflect a presumption of bad faith on either side. I recognize that most editors genuinely aim to improve the encyclopedia.

My intention is to contribute by incorporating more reliable, independent sources, helping add a broader, nonpartisan perspective. I’m documenting my observations because I believe in transparency, and I hope we can work together to provide more inclusive, nuanced coverage. If disagreements arise, I’m dedicated to discussing them openly and seeking consensus.

Thank you for your advice and for taking the time to share your perspective. I look forward to collaborating and helping to diversify Wikipedia’s range of viewpoints. JD April (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi JD April, I noticed you are not yet autoconfirmed (which should ocur in a few days or so), and as such wikipedia makes you answer a CAPTCHA whenever attempting to insert an external link. This is mainly done to deter spammers, however it obviously can effect innocent folk such as yourself. Hope this clears some things up! Gaismagorm (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, that explains the issue. Thank you so much for the information. Have a great day! JD April (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

No problem, you too! Gaismagorm (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply