That would put you in a conflict of interest, unless you declare that you’re You. 
And you couldn’t use your own personal knowledge about You, because that’s not verifiable.
Unless you write an autobiographical article about You, and get it published in a quasi-authoritative source, and then you can cite to the You article, written by you.
You can apply for arbitration when you perceive that you’re being treated unfairly. If your argument is better informed and adequately referenced, cooler heads will prevail and vindicate you. I’ve never had to do that, but it’s good to know you have recourse to justice if needed.
BTW, the featured article on Wikipedia today is about “Chains of Love”, a dating reality show that aired for six episodes in 2001. Now, the featured articles “are considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer” and only about one in a thousand articles qualify. (Certainly none of the articles I’ve created or extensively edited qualified.) So I’m a little amazed that someone managed to write such a comprehensive article about a short-lived show from 18 years ago.
I did get an article from initial creation to “Good Article” status. The key seem to have been that my very first version had 12 references.
Over the years, I’ve had multiple two-month ‘convalescences’ after spine surgeries. I had a lot of time on my hands so editing Wikipedia was a natural. I started at least a half-dozen substantial medicine articles (there were lots of gaps back then) and made many, many edits to others.
Then I encountered my first intransigent editor. I’m not sure I’ve ever been more frustrated. I won’t bore you with the details but suffice it to say I haven’t done a significant medical edit since (and I have definitely had the time).
I’ve made minor edits to typographical mistakes and grammatical mistakes, and I’ve occasionally added political information to elections and the like, but I don’t do it all too often.
I would like to participate more but I’m honestly not even sure what to do beyond the minor edits.
Me too. Some of the exchanges over really minor things got so involved that it became a task more than a pleasure.
Yeah, but I already have a job. Which is what it boils down to – maybe there’s some way to get past the politics and elitist editors and get into the “in crowd” and all that but it’s just not that important to me. If I see something I can improve and someone else slaps it down in some nerdfight, I’m going to just move along. I’m not invested enough to get into it with them or go through their “process” just so I can add a cite or an update to an article.
Yes, exactly. I decided I’m not going to volunteer significant time, effort, and expertise to go through all this bullshit. I get paid to do this stuff.
There are almost six million articles on Wikipedia and the number of editors who are in this “in crowd” or are protective of their pages is probably, at best, in the few thousands. It seems to me that the odds are that you’re unlikely to come across one of these editors. So I don’t think such stories should discourage people from trying to contribute, as long as they understand the rules, particularly about providing cites.
I’ve made minor grammatical corrections and a few [sup]Citation Needed[/sup] tags, but I’ve only made one contribution beyond that, and it was still very minor: in the article on the Baltic Sea, it was mentioned that it is fresh enough (at least in most places and times) that drinking it will hydrate you rather than dehydrate you: yes, that link goes to the definition of a chemical hydrate. So I Was Bold and just broke the link because the link made no sense in context, because drinking water from the Baltic Sea will not turn you into a molecule chemically bonded to two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms.
I think you were right to break that link. I’ve seen similar things occur. For a (made-up) example, an article about an actor might include his filmography, including his appearance in a 2005 film version of A Christmas Carol, with the title linked to the article on the original novel rather than the film. So if I see something like that, I’ll change to the link to the one for the movie, and if it doesn’t exist, remove the link entirely.
There’s a big split within Wikipedia about how to handle “redlinks” or links that go to non-existent articles. Some people think the redlinks should be removed, while others think they should be left in place in case the article linked to is eventually written.
I’ve corrected spelling, grammar, and minor formatting errors when I’ve encountered them and have time to deal with it. Any more than that and I’ve found my changes are almost immediately deleted by the WikiNazis, so I don’t bother anymore.
The only time I ever actually added information that I can recall was corrected and expanding information about a cigarette company whose products I used for the very brief window where I occasionally smoked. This was EARLY days of wikipedia, where a lot of pages were still stubs or the “obviously written in half an hour by a teenager with no cites” level of thing. My edits stuck around for a while, but it appears to have been replaced by a much more “encyclopedic” entry that I would almost guarantee was done by the company or a tobacco trade group or such.
Beyond that, I’ll occasionally fix spelling, grammar, or remove obvious errors, but that’s about it. I don’t have the time / inclination / skills for adding cites and I know it’s not worth the bother without.
Whoa, whoa. Didn’t you notice the hatnote at the top of the page?
This article is about chemical compounds. For hydration in humans or animals, see drinking.
That was put there for exactly the purpose of removing the confusion you mentioned. Word-sense disambiguation. It would have been more helpful to simply redirect the link to drinking instead of removing it. If you inadvertently link to a disambiguation page, a bot will notify you so that you can direct the link to where it specifically belongs. It happens to all of us, but editors don’t sweat that because it’s easily fixed. Rookie mistakes like linking to a novel instead of a film with the same title is something an editor learns to avoid very early on. Did you really think the system doesn’t have a way to correct for that?
I think this (though in a different way than you) gets to the heart of my disillusionment. Coming from a family whose mentality is work to get paid and survive, but also being exposed to notions of collaboration out of interest or passion from volunteering, conventions, festivals, and even fiction like Star Trek, I’ve always had a deep cognitive dissonance on the subject. Wikipedia seemed like an ideal project, and the people felt like “my tribe”. In some ways it was very representative of the promises of the internet. Which itself was initially a utopian garden for free speech. But magnifying these ideals has also magnified their flaws. The biggest of which, is underdevelopment of contextualization.
That was added after I broke the link. I debated adding a link to oral rehydration anyway but couldn’t find one that seemed appropriate, and said so in the edit comment in case anyone wanted to add one. The sentence still contains a link to “dehydration” which should contain the vast majority of what you need to know about rehydration anyway.
OK, cool. Sorry if I snapped at you. Just in general around here, the carping against Wikipedia is too often ill-informed and unfair. My point is that the system really works. What I’m seeing too much of is mere carping instead of well-founded criticism. I’ve been seriously critical of Wikipedia in areas that in my considered opinion need improving, particularly the gender gap. Because I care about it, I back up my criticism with action toward solving the problem. Overall, Wikipedia is a fucking awesome treasurehouse of knowledge. It deserves more respect from Dopers given the stated mission of the Dope. Especially now that Cecil has retired.
So what’s the way the system has to correct for that? Because I’ve manually corrected such things more than once.