I'm currently a clinical medical student at
King's College London, and am taking advantage of the deluge of work to update some Wikipedia pages as a sort of revision exercise. My first
degree was actually in
English literature, and I worked in
IT for
IBM for three years or so after that before arriving at medicine via a
psychologydiploma and a year's work at
UCL in
health psychology, mostly working with people with chronic illness.
My main aim in Wikipedia is to try to reference as many disputed claims in articles as possible in as unbiased a way as possible. Like everyone, I have my own biases, but I hope they're a little different from those of the medical stereotype given the humanities background. That said, I'm a firm believer in taking decisions based on well-researched, solidly-analysed evidence, for all that there are problems with funding, publication, and bias intrinsic in that.
Things which I have done at Wikipedia which I have taken pleasure in
Seeing how the
Psychophysics article I started in January 2004 has evolved into a full and detailed description of the topic from my handful of sentences.
Being able to start the
Lewis Wolpert page. He is one of my heroes.
<!--See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags-->
<div class="references-small"><references/></div>
<ref>{{cite book | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | publisher = | date = | location = | pages = | url = | doi = | id = }}</ref>
I have very, very little time for those who come to Wikipedia, fly in the face of consensus, claim in their posts to be representative of an unreferenced "scientific community", and mutter darkly that because the consensus view is not their own perhaps Wikipedia is not a productive place for them to spend time.