User talk:Skyler1534/DR
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Adraeus,
I consider my task to be finished if there is no one left on one side of the dispute. I have not read your essays that you pointed me to because I came into this for the sole purpose of dispute resolution. In order to accomplish this, it is important that I do not take either side. From my point of view, both sides had a valid argument, so I went on to not consider it vandalism on either part and took it as serious dispute resolution. Valid is not to say right. Frankly, I don't care who is right or wrong.
The sole purpose of my intervening was to resolve the dispute to a point where one side is not constantly reverting the other side's contributions and to get things to a point where contributions to the article can resume. That's it.
Atheism is, at its base, philosophy. Philosophy, by its nature, is argumentative and subjective. Wikipedia is not intended to create articles stating one point of view is philosophically correct. It is intended to be neutral. This means in a philosophical matter, all arguments must be represented fairly and impartially. From the title of one of your articles, I see that it calls Ayn Rand's theories heresy. Obviously this means that the authors views differ greatly from Ms. Rand's. Because of this, it is clear that the essay is not neutral. It takes a side. And anyone who recognizes Ayn Rand as a philosopher (which is a large population) would find that essay to be biased. Therefore, if your author's views are represented, Ms. Rand's contrary views MUST be respresented (even if they appear to some to be very, very wrong) in order to make it NPOV. In fact, someone trying to make the article NPOV would seek out these views and include them without passion or prejudice for the sole purpose of illustrating that there are other views and the one that the author is stating is not necessarily correct.
In politics, it is the same way. You can feel down to your bones that Republicans are absolutely correct on an issue. No doubt about it, every shred of scientific and ideological fact shows they are. But if you write an article about it and do not include the Democratic viewpoint without stating, implying or alluding to the fact that it is 100% wrong, the article is biased by definition.
I came to Talk:Atheism with the goal of assisting in facilitating compromise. Compromise is the only way that Wikipedia works. I do not consider myself to have been successful by any means. On the contrary, I am as disappointed as you are. But the fact remains that my goal was to relieve the conflict so that contributions to the article could continue. Without 2 or more sides to an argument, there is no conflict. The goal has been accomplished, but I am not happy about how it was accomplished. If User:20040302 et al. had left the discussion without resolution, I would not feel happy about it either. But it is what it is. I will not facilitate further argument. And without argument, I have no purpose in this matter. Therefore, I am stepping away and letting Wikipedia continue as was intended.
I am sorry that you feel disappointment with the outcome, but I hope you realize that I do, as well. The difference is that I am not in the dispute, so I will not get myself personally invested in the outcome.
Regardless, if you go back to the article and User:20040302 is twisting the views, I will be happy to come back and assist. But you cannot revert everything that does not conform to your views. It is just not how Wikipedia is meant to work. User:20040302 is respectful of my position and knows I mean well, so he will compromise if I place it in front of him. If you feel he is going overboard, I will be happy to reign things back, but you will have to be prepared to accept his views being included in the article to some extent.
