User:Sengai Podhuvan

Improvements to Wiki Editing Process

Quoting Primary Sources

Having worked as an editor of various government publications for over 3 decades has given me a sound knowledge of creating and editing articles written by various scholars and the nuances of the same. At Wikimania, I would like to use the opportunity to provide suggestions to improving the editing procedure of Wikipedia, discuss with the diverse participants and get their feedback. Specifically my suggestions are more relevant to editing articles on literary work. I believe that this will be useful to Wikipedia as it grows in stature not only as a source of information but also as a source of ancient literary works.

Consider merits and demerits of sources

While my work outside of Wikipedia involved editing works of scholars, in Wikipedia, the work can come from novices and scholars alike. Thus the writers have different depth of understanding on the subject matter. There is a need to allow for more flexibility in accepting articles that only have reference to primary source, when written by scholars in the field. Without this, the contribution of experts in the field will be limited as it limits the extent of information they can provide. Especially for ancient works, it is not always possible to find a secondary source (that is already available) to the information provided. Though I understand that my suggested alternative will add additional complexity to the editing process, I believe this is essential Wikipedia to grow to its ever expanding role.

Merging of Articles on a case by case basis

Another point I would like to discuss in Wikimania pertains to dating a literary work. Currently the date of a literary work is determined using various sources of information without considering the merits and demerits and thus ends up being a wide range. For example, there is an article in Wikipedia by the name ‘Tolkappiam’ that refers to an ancient Tamil literary work. It dates the book to a period from 8 century BC to 10 century AD. Such a wide range makes this information less useful. With a little effort, one can weigh the sources based on their relative merits and narrow the range of dates. While I realize that Wikipedia does not attempt to express its own opinions, such an addition will render it more useful as a reference.

Important modification

Finally, I would like to suggest a small but what I consider as an important modification to the way articles are presented in Wikipedia. Articles of similar topics, albeit significant in their own ways, are forced to be merged unilaterally. While this is warranted on most cases for streamlining the look and feel, ease of cataloguing and preventing repetitions, it is not always beneficial to the reader. Many articles, especially the literary ones are better left to exist independently and links can be provided in the main article. In this regard, I would like to argue for more flexibility on a case by case basis.