User:WikiRat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello all, I'm WikiRat.

Well needless to say, when I discovered Wikipedia, I became fascinated. After wading through article after article for months, I finally worked up enough courage to contribute.

It didn't take long to realize that Wikipedia would make an excellent study culture. Embedded, within the contributions of benevolent Wikipedia participants is masked, the dark under-current of theological, political, or intellectual arrogance. Yes - everyone apparently has an agenda.

I didn't wade far in, before I felt this under current-tugging at my leg. I choose a spot on the river bank where I thought it would be safe to wade in (somewhere between Ancient Roman History and fringe Christian beliefs), and somehow started getting sweept away.

I noted, that unless you are Catholic, don't edit the Roman Catholic articles. Unless you are either very-pro or very-anti (or don't mind being labelled) British Israelism, Identity Christianity, or related links, do not try to post. [I'm not even going to try to post to a more controversial topic, lest I "get labeled". There are other examples of this under-current, but that is not the point here. The point here is to record my Wikipedia lessons in a concise form.

1. I have discovered a mantra for resisting changes in articles that bolster the orthodoxy of ones favourite beliefs. It goes like this;

"You need to cite a published source that backs up these views" .... or "You must quote an authoritative source (peer reviewed etc)" ...

Some how original sources do not matter?

2. Of course, it does not matter if you do cite sources, provide evidence, there are always counter arguments;

1. "Your authority is not an authority" - which really means I don't believe your source,
2. "You're authority must be peer reviewed" - which really means we are only going to accept your authority if it agrees with the orthodox position held by the majority in the some field. Of course, this is hypocrisy, since the "Bible" has not been "peer reviewed" nor it is universally accepted.

3. My other favourite mantra, is "I am not aware of this....", or "I've never heard this ...". Which really means, "If I have not heard of this, been taught it, or I do not agree with this, it cannot be true". Of course this is also hypocrisy, since the converse must also be true "If you agree with this, or believe it, you cannot be objective."

There are variations on this also, for example;

1. "This article is true, therefore I believe it ..."
2. "This article contains errors, therefore none of it is true ..."

"My authority is more authoritative than your authority."

Though I am "insert some component of your background", I can be objective, however you are "insert some component of your background", and cannot be objective when you post in forum (related to your background).

Just some thoughts.

It is suspected that this user may be a sock puppet, meat puppet or impersonator of LinuxDude. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LinuxDude for evidence. See block log Notes for the suspect Notes for the accuser