This user refuses to take seriously anything written in the Comic Sans font.
On a journey to learn and contribute to Wikipedia with fairness and verifiability. I’m new to editing on Wikipedia and working on understanding the rules for editing contentious topics. If I make a mistake, please WP:Assume Good Faith.
I am from Australia and I joined Wikipedia on February 2025. I’m passionate about evidence-based information and committed to learning Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. My goal is to contribute to articles with clarity, neutrality, and reliable sourcing. I respect the importance of mainstream scientific consensus and aim to ensure that all notable, verifiable information is represented accurately and without bias.
I have an interest in computing, politics, natural wellbeing, and mindfulness.
I'm interested in contributing to topics where accuracy and balance matter most: that is to help maintain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I enjoy working on articles that present complex issues clearly and fairly in a way that reflects Wikipedia:Reliable sources and avoids false balance. My goal is to help readers access content that reflects a well-rounded understanding rather than polarised viewpoints.
This user is aware of the designation of the following as contentious topics:
Neutral reporting and avoiding bias are essential for maintaining trust in knowledge. When articles are presented without proportionality or transparency, people can be misled by extremes, even where this is the mainstream consensus. This is especially the case in the biomedical sciences and medicine, where the consequences involve the well-being of the people.
History offers sobering lessons. The Radium Girls case in the early 20th century showed how vested interests overlooked clear evidence of harm, prioritising profit over worker safety. In modern times, Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, warned in his editorial “What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”[1] that a significant proportion of biomedical research may be unreliable due to weak methodology, bias, and systemic pressures. There are also documented cases of pharmaceutical fraud - including data manipulation and unlawful marketing - demonstrate how commercial interests can distort evidence and harm public health.[2] Beyond medicine, industry influence has shaped research agendas in sectors like tobacco and food, delaying regulation and creating doubt.
These examples highlight why Wikipedia’s core principles of neutrality, verifiability, and avoiding false balance are critical. My goal is to help ensure that complex topics are presented clearly, proportionally, and based on trustworthy sources, so readers can make informed decisions without being swayed by extremes or vested interests.
I am partially in favour of natural wellbeing. That is, I like to use alternative wellbeing practices that have a clear physical component and a plausible mode of action, because I enjoy them and they make me feel good. These include modalities like chiropractic, yoga, essential oils, and a low chemical/low tox lifestyle. I do not however, support non-plausible practices such as homeopathy, reiki, bioresonance, energy healing, or mysticism.
The gold standards of evidence are Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) and Meta-analyses and these are important to reduce bias and prove associations. But evidence exists on a spectrum, and other forms of studies include observational studies, case reports, physiological plausibility etc. Even if a modality hasn't been proven, there can still be improved well-being through reducing stress, improved sleep, mood enhancement, etc. These still matter, even if they haven't been proven in an RCT. Obviously, it is really important not to allow fraudsters to profit from fake remedies, but it is also unfair to dimiss all mechanisms simply because they have not been proven in RCTs.
My goal on Wikipedia is to only facilitate evidence-based information and sources without being affected by bias.
This is a personal user page and does not represent Wikipedia’s official views or policies.
