Dystopos joined Wikipedia in November 2004 and founded Bhamwiki.com, a parallel project for the Birmingham, Alabama area, in March 2006. That project now boasts over 12,400 articles and is one of the largest, and probably the best, city wiki in the United States.
As of December 24, 2014, en.WikiChecker credits me with 6,510 edits to main article content on Wikipedia, most of which was undertaken between 2004 and 2007. My primary interest has been in topics relating to Birmingham, but I have also contributed to Wikipedia:Articles for creation and to policy discussions at WP:Schools. With some exceptions, the bulk of my efforts on behalf of Wikipedia has been unrewarding.
During the month of June, 2005 I attempted to help mediate a dispute on Talk:Slovenians about whether Slovene or Slovenian should be the preferred term on Wikipedia. The debate has greatly overshadowed the actual content of the pages involved and is approximately one iota closer to consensus. Maybe.
In the summer of 2006 my edit history was analyzed and, through some sort of analytical möbius strip, I was found to be a raving conservative racist bent on undermining Wikipedia's neutrality. Needless to say I take exception to this characterization but I learned to be amused rather than riled. Others may be better able to say whether I helped to wrest the Condoleezza Rice article out of a bitter edit war or merely exacerbated the conflict. --Dystopos 23:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I have argued, at length, in various guideline proposals, that we would be wise to adhere to the core policies of WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutral point of view and WP:No original research in determining whether an particular subject merits an article. The prevailing alternative, which I consider to be unwise and needlessly complex, is to establish guidelines for particular categories of topics based on their notability within that category. This, I believe, gives rise to the curious phenomenon that a "significant" episode of Will & Grace is accorded more value than an "insignificant" high school. Similarly, I believe that the WP:Naming conventions used alone are more elegant and flexible than an endless parade of special conventions for special classes of articles. Disambiguate when necessary, not for "consistency". --Dystopos 23:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
In late January 2007 some of my contributions were removed by bots. My attempts to correct their errors were met with unfounded automated accusations and then by misplaced arguments by bot defenders. This experience is symptomatic of Wikipedia's growing domination by unnecessarily detailed guidelines enforced by a cadre of obsessive Wikipedians and their automated software agents. This comes at the expense of the collaborative atmosphere which attracts contributions from a wide user base. --Dystopos 23:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been growing increasingly weary of the emergence of "castes" of editors who believe that they are improving Wikipedia by passing judgment on the contributions of others and, instead of just making the fixes, telling those others what they did wrong and plastering their contributions with all kinds of labels and references to guidelines. One of the basic qualities of Wikipedia as that ANYONE can edit. If I come across an uncited fact, is it more productive for me to look it up and fix it myself, or to attach some kind of warning template to it and move on hoping that someone else is more gifted than I am. If I don't have the resources to find a citation, mightn't I go find something I CAN do that is more helpful than nagging?. --Dystopos (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
In May 2010 I spent several hours creating and populating the Category:Alabama Sports Hall of Fame as a parallel to the Category:Oregon Sports Hall of Fame, the Category:Ohio State Varsity O Hall of Fame, the Category:Texas Sports Hall of Fame and other "minor sporting awards". My work was reversed overnight by a robot acting with reference to a previous deletion of the category that occurred with virtually no discussion. That debate referenced a guideline which seems to contradict a great deal of accepted practice in categorization. The discussion around the deletion has reinforced my suspicion that those attracted to Wikipedia as a place to exert control over others are winning a war of attrition over those attracted to make contributions to the project. --Dystopos (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I grant non-exclusive permission for the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. to relicense my text contributions under any copyleft license that it chooses, provided it maintains the free and open spirit of the GFDL. This permission acknowledges that future licensing needs of the Wikimedia projects may need adapting in unforeseen fashions to facilitate other uses, formats, and locations. It is given for as long as this banner remains.
_Museum_of_Art.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
