User:FalconXVI

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FalconXVI.

I strongly support rigorous debate as a method of judging an articles quality. Simply because one does not understand why an article is a quality article does not mean that it is not. Conversely, that one believes an article to be a quality article does not make it one. The only reasonable way to resolve such differences in ideas is through rigorous debate in which all viewpoints are aired and have an equal say in the outcome.

There is no reason to disregard any argument. Regardless of who makes an argument it is valid until it is refuted. This refutation may be easy (if the argument is absurd), and may be done for any number of reasons, or it may be extremely complex and paradoxical.

Whether or not I become more involved with Wikipedia remains to be seen. If so I intend to devote my time and energy to a single contested article at any one time.

I am at the moment, however, extremely dissapointed in what I have seen of Wikipedia. It shocks me to see the hypocracy of new editors, regular editors, and especially admins. One would think, and hope, that the admins would both know and understand Wikipedia policy, but unfortunately that does not seem to be the case. Disagreement is perfectly alright, and over policy interpretation is almost guarenteed. I have no problem with it. The problem stems from when editors are unwilling to change their opinion, and begin to grasp at straws when they can no longer support their side of the debate. This is where accusations and ad hominim attacks are so prevalent, and this is why Wikipedia has traveled so far off course from its founding intentions.
The idea that adminship should not be anything special is a noble one, and perfectly in line with Wikipedia's policy of AFG. Unfortunately for this idea I'm also a realist, and it is clear that relying on the good faith of those granted adminship is not a reasonable course of action. I have, in line with Wikipedia policy, assumed good faith. However that assumption has been shattered from evidence gathered from various areas of Wikipedia.

I suppose these are somewhat relevant.