User:JaredMcKenzie

❧

Wikipedia

Welcome to Jared McKenzie's user page. Please feel free to look around.

For inquiries or feedback, please use my Talk page.

Thank you for stopping by.

Introduction

I am mostly just the guy who notice stuff when Wikipedia got holes that need to be filled. Such as noticing nobody ever mentioned that Herrings are also canned, or that not all species of Mackerel are high in mercury. Or correcting an edit on 2025 New York City mayoral election where info may be unintentionally incorrect.

I do however also research and add in-depth info, but I minimally need to have an interest and some understanding of the topic first, before I try to improve it as best as I can, such as on articles like Immigration to Japan, Posterior cruciate ligament injury, Sprained ankle, Cycling, etc.

What makes me want to edit?

What drives me to edit, are the articles I wish to understand or like. Back when I was in University, I first edited after noticing inaccuracies in a few articles. I think it was then when I first discovered that through the process of correcting articles and adding to it, it helps not just others but also myself to get a better understanding.

In Wikipedia, you are meant to look for high quality sources and ensure the article reflects the topic well. That standard and the experience of achieving a complete picture of a topic to come to fruition, is meaningful to me.

Nowadays I noticed Wikipedia is lacking in certain articles for stuff like cycling and sports medicine concepts like FOOSH injuries and the balance between posterior and anterior chains at the knee, etc - By working on building and improving such articles, it helps me learn. I also travel and like sharing photos of the towns I been in, when I noticed Wiki lacks such pics completely.

I like to contribute photos of the places I've been to.

Even if my edits aren't relatively extensive, I like knowing they meaningfully improve content, help fellow readers understand or explore topics better, and allows me to keep learning and exploring too. This is what makes me to want to edit.

Editing philosophy

Tho nowadays I keep a fair distance from the more political articles, and only comment occasionally. I think even when an article contradicts the experts and you merely correct and add in an established expert concensus, there will always be people that want to hound and attack the messenger for daring to add an expert view. On that, I hold to a simple principal, captured by the saying: "To offend a strong man, tell him a lie. To offend a weak man, tell him the truth". I respect those who are honest to a fault, and will accept and respect truths, even if they completely hate it. I believe such an attitude is critical for a mature development of Wikipedia where partisan politics and conspiracies have to take a backseat when it comes to editing.

Tho I also have come to learn that you are responsible for your own actions. Even if others show heated words at you due to disagreements, it's important to not take it personally. Accuracy matters, but so does professionalism.

I had considered weighing in on topics on Zionism but it seems discussions are constantly over caring too much over the public image of the article, rather than ensuring readers can easily attain a complete picture in the lede. Overly arguing over whether to add in 3 extra words in lede, which can help inform readers better if included, but arguing they need to be removed because they perceive it as redundant and that the readers can figure it out themselves. Such talks seems trivial when it comes to pursuit of knowledge, and am just not into that trivial editing politics of Wikipedia.

Franklins would rather have me walk him than waste time on petty Wikipedia disputes about politics.

Everyone is a volunteer here. You can choose what you come to Wikipedia for. Mine was largely to learn in topics that I want to understand. Occasionally will dive into causes like climate change efforts and understanding politics that impacts my own country of Australia, but most of my efforts on wiki would be reserved for articles that I am interested in, and try to generally avoid what I see as meaningless trivial debates on whether to allow in info, or not.

And even if Wikipedia would suddenly go kaput overnight, I like to think my own experience at Wikipedia will still had been very worth it - as I have gained a lot of understanding and knowledge in the process of editing. I think editing is most enjoyable when you are primarily doing it for intrinsic reasons. And if you edit and learn through your editing, and feel you are also doing something meaningful (help others learn) - then you are on the right track in my book.

List of recent contributions

13 December 2025

Media Contributions

I contribute both photos and videos to Wikimedia Commons. I have also shared a few pics for Wikipedia articles like Excavator and Pandanus tectorius.

New Articles

I create new articles only when I notice a missing subject that I believe is needed. Below are the articles I have created:

  • Uzbek Plov - Uzbekistan's national dish. I tried this during my travels. I think it is culturally interesting and flavorful, and definitely deserve coverage on Wikipedia.
  • Luv-a-Duck - In Australia, if you want to eat duck, this is the major company people buy it from. I absolutely luv their Peking duck and Confit duck range. It surprised me that it wasn't already on Wikipedia, which is why I created the article.

Current projects

Am currently working on making a new article for Croki and Bohnock. Possibly also an article on a recipe that I been wanting to replicate, but noticed there's nil details on wiki. Probably going to share some feet vids.... for ankle sprain video as I doubt anyone can easily understand the technical terms for ankle eversion exercises. Beyond that, don't have much in mind but will surely add to this section when I see or think of something that wiki currently does not have.

My 6 rules

I noticed Wikipedia can be a bit sensitive. One article had not explained a basic fact in detail, while simultaneously having a section full of unsourced or original research that ultimately argued the opposite. Ideally it shouldn't even be difficult to reach a consensus that it wasn't okay. Yet it can easy to be sucked into the more unproductive arguments especially if an info is politically unpopular, rather than incorrect. Even worse, is when you fail your own standards and rush ahead to make mistakes that could had been avoided

It pays to build set of clear rules to remember, to ensure that when you have disputes over facts, that you do it right and issue-free.

The rules for any dispute over facts

  • Ensure you actually have the scholarly consensus. That means the position is supported directly by multiple RS and also isn't contradicted by any other RS.
  • Ensure your edit faithfully reflects the concensus, and if others, for any reason, do not agree with the experts reliability or the edit, try to work it out on talk but ensure your own tone is good.
  • If unable to work things out, instead of repeating same arguments - pull away from the discussion and reach out to a wider community. In practise, that means calmly raising issue on talk page (if haven't already), requesting input from other resources and uninvolved editors, and if necessary, third opinion, DRN, or later RfC if recommended by DRN mods. And let wider community decide on it.
  • Additionally when undergoing DRN, read the entire page on rules. Do not skim it. Do not edit the article nor report another to ANI while drn is ongoing, as it violates DRN rules, and wastes the DRN mod's time.
  • And in general, do not use LLM to comment on threads as that is not acceptable conduct.
  • And when replying on talk, decide whether to disengage or persuade. Do not ever do both as it unnecessarily expands talk threads, which make it much harder for others to read.