User:Ed/Statement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page.

I do not expect anyone to support this essay. All I ask is that you read it.

Contents

[edit] Disputes

Recently I have been involved in several disputes. These disputes mostly involved minor trivial matters. Nonetheless, I have led myself to uncontrollable arguments with several administrators and respected users in the Wikipedia community.

This dispute has, in the end, resulted in my blocking [1] earlier this year.

And I do not regret any of my disputes.

[edit] My Story

The invitation of Wikipedia to edit their articles freely and without restraint first led me to edit as a registered user. The idea of editing an article to improve an encyclopedia was appealing to me. I started editing on articles related to TV shows, movies, and computer games.

A few hours into my addiction to Wikipedia, I received a message sent by some user welcoming me into Wikipedia. What a great feeling it was to realize I have been welcomed into the Wikipedia community! My excitement was brought down when I read the message, informing me of the many policies and guidelines I was required to comply with. Failure to comply with these rules could get me blocked. Ok, that made sense to me. Until...

[edit] Policy Enforcement

The policy enforcement system on Wikipedia is flawed!

What exactly happens to a user who breaks Wikipedia policy? What happens to a user who is in a constant dispute with another Wikipedian? That user would obviously get blocked by an administrator.

A user on Wikipedia with the power to block a user or delete and protect a page is very similar to a ruler that has absolute power over his land and people (dictator, emperor, king, pharaoh). Any person who has power over a certain population of people will tend to abuse his/her power and corrupt. It is a known fact among many different countries around the world (especially countries with political controversy).

An administrator tends to take action on a situation against Wikipedia policy without careful consideration of the matter. They take a cursory look at what happened, and just carelessly take action. When argued with, the administrator who took action will tend to defend him/herself, believing that the decision made was correct. Unlike a justice system, in which cases are reviewed by an impartial judge, most policy enforcement procedures on Wikipedia end at the administrator. Only the Arbitration Committee exists for the purpose of resolving disputes over administrators, but they only take special cases. There is a slim chance of the admin being reviewed or reverted of his/her actions.

There is also the issue of reporting administrative abuse to another administrator on WP:AN. No matter how detailed your explanation against the admin is, virtually no action is taken against him/her (except for a trivial warning message). It’s almost like reporting an abusive police officer to another officer. Will that officer be reprimanded? No. The officer was probably respected in the law enforcement community so much that nobody would even dare to touch him/her. The only solution to that would be to contact Internal affairs. That is the same idea here. The only way to report an administrator with the justice needed is to have some sort of a superior power to the administrator. Even then, that superior power would have ultimate power as a result, and tend to corrupt.

Administrators across Wikipedia have continuously blocked users for the wrong reasons, or failed to carefully consider the true meaning behind Wikipedia policy. They have only produced explanations justifying their actions that are only short-term. Sure, a lot of admins carefully explain Wikipedia policy to misbehaving users. But do they even bother to explain why that policy exists in Wikipedia? Do they even bother explain to the user how he/she is actually breaking Wikipedia policy? Do they even bother to tell the user how he/she can improve on Wikipedia? No. They just block, and block, and block.

[edit] Consensus

The process of consensus here in Wikipedia is also somewhat flawed! What is the concept of consensus? It is made so that every opinion expressed on the discussion can be considered by the Wikipedia community.

But that is not what is evidently done here. When an objection arises in a discussion for consensus, is that objection considered? Only if the objection favors the majority of the voters. For example, if 25 people say yes on a discussion, but 2 people say no, will the objections by those 2 people be heard? No. The 25 supporters will bully those 2 opponents until they withdraw from the discussion. Let me give you another example. The power of the United States Congress is decided by the majority of the members of a certain party. As of November 10, 2006, the Democratic Party (now called the majority party) is the major party in Congress over the Republican Party (United States) (now called the minority party. Which party’s views will be carried out by Congress? Democrats’ (of course).

That is the main issue I have with consensus. Consensus, when there is a standing objection to the majority, usually never considers the minority opinions.

[edit] Controversy

I have this huge feeling that this essay is about to spark a great amount of controversy. Please note that I am not trying to attack any particular user. I know many administrators who actually carefully take action against users or controversial pages with justice. I also have participated in many discussions in which consensus was rightfully achieved. Nonetheless, not everyone might think the way I view Wikipedia. Don’t get me wrong here: Wikipedia is a great resource that just keeps getting better and better everyday. In fact, most of my research is done on Wikipedia. The only aspects of Wikipedia is dislike about Wikipedia has been outlined above. Also, note that I probably might have more objections to Wikipedia that I probably think I do.

Note that I am not a conservative. I am a liberal. So please don’t fell offended by my objections to Wikipedia policy. This is purely how I act in real life. I always have the tendency to object established values.

Don’t be surprised if I add another essay as a sequel to this. I have many things I like to express. I, as an American, enjoy the freedom of free speech. I think I tend to exercise this freedom a little too much.

As a result of my increased amounts of stress and the disputes and this very long essay I took the time to compose, I have decided to take a very long Wikibreak. I might be back in a week, a month, or a year, or a decade. I will never know.

Note that I do not seek encouragement, apologies, or anything. I only seek an explanation. A fullly detailed explanation that can help satisfy the issues on Wikipedia.

Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Returned from Wikibreak. I felt that I could make a difference on Wikipedia.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/d/2F/User%7EEd_Statement_79b7.html"