czar is creating encyclopedia articles
1

patron

$1
per month
"There are indeed two Wikipedias," I tell my students, who ask what most readers want to know: whether they can trust what is written. No, the text is unstable and, with few caveats, can be edited by anyone at any time. Yes, the text is generally good enough for an overview, the main condition for which I'd read it. No, the text is written by schmucks and often without regard for the reader. Yes, a few hundred articles are impeccable. No, one should never cite an encyclopedia. Yes, you're unlikely to find a better overview on the non-core topics either in print or online. Wikipedia is an imperfect encyclopedia, but it's the best we've got.

The trick to reading Wikipedia is to remember that it's inconsistent. Articles that look like garbage are likely garbage, and articles that look like serious business are likely serious business. By and large, the garbage articles were written by many anonymous editors. Each added a bit and did not care to attach the references to the right claims. By and large, the serious business articles were written by diehards who scoured the best available sources to accumulate, in one place, what no other medium would dare publish: an exhaustive treatment of what most people would want to know about the topic. Wikipedia will live and die as the free encyclopedia ("freedom" undergirds its gratis content), but in your lifetime, you will know Wikipedia by its increasingly common quality content was thoughtfully edited by someone with the wherewithal.

The chase

I write articles on video games, education, and art, though I edit broadly. I expect most interest in this Patreon, at least at first, to be in relation to games. In particular, if you read games content on Wikipedia, you've likely read my work.  Here are some examples:
Your support lets me work on public, independent scholarship instead of something less consequential. The subjects of my work (for example, most of the above) would not otherwise have this level of overview in a public repository. For a taste, some current projects include the 31 titles included in the recent Rare Replay compilation, the complete works of radical pedagogue Paul Goodman, and a rewrite of Democracy & Education for the book's centennial anniversary. I am also a visiting scholar with the Smithsonian on a collaboration with contemporary African artists. 

I'd like to be able to work on older games, which requires more time in recovering sources from the dustbin and is less rewarding in a utilitarian sense. I'm also developing a database of magazine coverage, which I hope could carry across all publications online and offline. There are plenty of games databases, which don't really interest me, but on WP reliable sources are sacred. Say what you will about games journalism but the opinions of some outlets have more gravitas than others. The idea is to catalog the main sources of record for posterity and to make it easier to write Wikipedia articles about games with hard-to-find references (i.e., games that rely on offline references, or games from the early Internet whose sites have now gone offline). Funds will also support archival work to preserve old print and web content, which I make available for reference via the Wikipedia video games project.

I should also add that I dedicate all of my Wikipedia work to the public domain. This means that instead of cc-by-sa, my works become immediately open for distribution in the quickest and dirtiest ways possible so helps the spread of knowledge. My work has also led to the relicensing of hundreds of video game assets for free use in illustrating all types of game concepts.

At my first tier, you'll receive updates on these things. At the second tier, you'll get exclusive access to previews as they roll out. I'll also poll the group for ideas on what to work on next. (For example, maybe I should drop the above and work on articles related to games journalism, or our video game glossary?) At the third tier, you'll have access to me, we'll chat regularly and talk about Wikipedia or games or whatever you want.

Ethics

While I expect input from my patrons, my editorial independence is important to my work. It's also my prerogative. I am not a paid advocate and will not accept money in exchange for work on specific articles. (If advocacy is your intention, kindly do not support this Patreon.)

I'm happy to talk about Wikipedia and give generalized advice. If enough of my patrons are interested, I can canonize this advice in posts or videos or something. I also give frequent surveys to gauge interest in broad topics/categories. I welcome your feedback, but I'm serious about the independent affiliation stuff.

I am a doc student in the history and philosophy of education. I haven't worked in the games industry and my meager connection to it is old friends and Wikipedia contacts. It would be interesting to discuss how I choose topics and the process of researching them in the regular chat, if patrons request and, of course, I will declare any potential conflict of interest that would compromise my neutrality or editorial distance.

Images
Crown emoji by Google, Apache License
Modern Rome – Campo Vacino by Wm. Turner, public domain
Fantastic Contraption trailer by Northway Games, cc-by-sa-3.0
Fez trailer by Polytron, cc-by-sa-3.0
Rewards
Pledge $1 or more per month
1 patron
For supporting public scholarship, all patrons receive bleeding edge updates on recent and upcoming work
Pledge $6 or more per month
0 patrons
Czar's council
I poll my confidants for ideas on what to work on next, and they receive exclusive access to previous as they roll out. We'll chat regularly (monthly? more?) and talk about Wikipedia or games or whatever you want.
Pledge $25 or more per month
0 patrons
Crowdsourced reference librarian
Ever wish you had a Private Investigator to track down that elusive question? Or perhaps you didn't find it on Wikipedia? I'm on it.
Goals
$1 of $200 per month
Enough time to bang out a solid article from start to finish. Also, dignity.
1 of 3
"There are indeed two Wikipedias," I tell my students, who ask what most readers want to know: whether they can trust what is written. No, the text is unstable and, with few caveats, can be edited by anyone at any time. Yes, the text is generally good enough for an overview, the main condition for which I'd read it. No, the text is written by schmucks and often without regard for the reader. Yes, a few hundred articles are impeccable. No, one should never cite an encyclopedia. Yes, you're unlikely to find a better overview on the non-core topics either in print or online. Wikipedia is an imperfect encyclopedia, but it's the best we've got.

The trick to reading Wikipedia is to remember that it's inconsistent. Articles that look like garbage are likely garbage, and articles that look like serious business are likely serious business. By and large, the garbage articles were written by many anonymous editors. Each added a bit and did not care to attach the references to the right claims. By and large, the serious business articles were written by diehards who scoured the best available sources to accumulate, in one place, what no other medium would dare publish: an exhaustive treatment of what most people would want to know about the topic. Wikipedia will live and die as the free encyclopedia ("freedom" undergirds its gratis content), but in your lifetime, you will know Wikipedia by its increasingly common quality content was thoughtfully edited by someone with the wherewithal.

The chase

I write articles on video games, education, and art, though I edit broadly. I expect most interest in this Patreon, at least at first, to be in relation to games. In particular, if you read games content on Wikipedia, you've likely read my work.  Here are some examples:
Your support lets me work on public, independent scholarship instead of something less consequential. The subjects of my work (for example, most of the above) would not otherwise have this level of overview in a public repository. For a taste, some current projects include the 31 titles included in the recent Rare Replay compilation, the complete works of radical pedagogue Paul Goodman, and a rewrite of Democracy & Education for the book's centennial anniversary. I am also a visiting scholar with the Smithsonian on a collaboration with contemporary African artists. 

I'd like to be able to work on older games, which requires more time in recovering sources from the dustbin and is less rewarding in a utilitarian sense. I'm also developing a database of magazine coverage, which I hope could carry across all publications online and offline. There are plenty of games databases, which don't really interest me, but on WP reliable sources are sacred. Say what you will about games journalism but the opinions of some outlets have more gravitas than others. The idea is to catalog the main sources of record for posterity and to make it easier to write Wikipedia articles about games with hard-to-find references (i.e., games that rely on offline references, or games from the early Internet whose sites have now gone offline). Funds will also support archival work to preserve old print and web content, which I make available for reference via the Wikipedia video games project.

I should also add that I dedicate all of my Wikipedia work to the public domain. This means that instead of cc-by-sa, my works become immediately open for distribution in the quickest and dirtiest ways possible so helps the spread of knowledge. My work has also led to the relicensing of hundreds of video game assets for free use in illustrating all types of game concepts.

At my first tier, you'll receive updates on these things. At the second tier, you'll get exclusive access to previews as they roll out. I'll also poll the group for ideas on what to work on next. (For example, maybe I should drop the above and work on articles related to games journalism, or our video game glossary?) At the third tier, you'll have access to me, we'll chat regularly and talk about Wikipedia or games or whatever you want.

Ethics

While I expect input from my patrons, my editorial independence is important to my work. It's also my prerogative. I am not a paid advocate and will not accept money in exchange for work on specific articles. (If advocacy is your intention, kindly do not support this Patreon.)

I'm happy to talk about Wikipedia and give generalized advice. If enough of my patrons are interested, I can canonize this advice in posts or videos or something. I also give frequent surveys to gauge interest in broad topics/categories. I welcome your feedback, but I'm serious about the independent affiliation stuff.

I am a doc student in the history and philosophy of education. I haven't worked in the games industry and my meager connection to it is old friends and Wikipedia contacts. It would be interesting to discuss how I choose topics and the process of researching them in the regular chat, if patrons request and, of course, I will declare any potential conflict of interest that would compromise my neutrality or editorial distance.

Images
Crown emoji by Google, Apache License
Modern Rome – Campo Vacino by Wm. Turner, public domain
Fantastic Contraption trailer by Northway Games, cc-by-sa-3.0
Fez trailer by Polytron, cc-by-sa-3.0

Recent posts by czar

Rewards
Pledge $1 or more per month
1 patron
For supporting public scholarship, all patrons receive bleeding edge updates on recent and upcoming work
Pledge $6 or more per month
0 patrons
Czar's council
I poll my confidants for ideas on what to work on next, and they receive exclusive access to previous as they roll out. We'll chat regularly (monthly? more?) and talk about Wikipedia or games or whatever you want.
Pledge $25 or more per month
0 patrons
Crowdsourced reference librarian
Ever wish you had a Private Investigator to track down that elusive question? Or perhaps you didn't find it on Wikipedia? I'm on it.