Nothing gets me to blog like the intention not to blog.
I read this brief NPR piece about declining numbers of editors on Wikipedia. I’ve long thought the process was one bit too complex — particularly about flagging biased articles — so I’m hopeful for improvements.
Which raises a question: which Unitarian and Universalist articles yet need to be written or vastly improved? Wikipedia has, and can yet better be, a resource for training and personal exploration. And also, which core articles should be in as many languages as possible.
I’d gladly abandon other Unitarian and Universalist online historical works if the history writers out there could settle on working within the Wikipedia structure.
I’ve sort of dropped out of editing Wikipedia articles – too much work, only to have one’s work removed for no good reason (other than the whim of the author). While this is less likely to occur (I assume) with U and U historic articles – it still is, particularly if the article is of interest to non-U U audience.
What needs to be done? I would say virtually all historic Universalist articles could use a rewrite, among the worse that I just looked at is Caleb Rich. It might be interesting just to ask the question: what articles are not there, that should be?