Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Vigdor Schreibman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My articles have one abiding attribute, it appears, they always manage to raised havock with critics who, in fact, exercise their right to criticise without serious content. The article for deletion-Vigdor Schreibman is a duplicate of the blog article that has suffered page blanking several times in the last few days. One comment suggested that I have violated the neutrality rule.
That may be a very good issue for discussion, but the complaining party merely expressed concern for my text describing the leadership of the Republican Congress under which telecommunications reform was enacted. He wanted the corruption of democrats to be included as though these things always balance out, which is preposterous.
The evil that some men do is almost always exceptional. The complaining party did not mention any specific acts that he thought should have been included, and though I covered the entire legislative process I am not aware of any such corruption with that spectacular piece of legislation. During the decade or more that I have been writing about the "Information Age" I have yet to see one criticism of my work that stated what exactly was being criticized, and the criticisms that appear in this discussion are no different. If we are going to accept the dubious role of censorship in public politics based on generalities -- "Vanity" what? -- this exercise in truth searching is in for a quick deep fall.
Moreover, the neutrality rule avoids dealing with the deep hypocrisy in which the topic is nested. The "Media Aristocrats" that occupy the Congressional Press Galleries to keep people out who they disagree with have made the promotion of capitalism so inherent to their way of thinking that thay are simply incapable of acknowledging that the media enterprise is the very essence of a partisan exercise. Any criticism of finance capitalism -- not to be confused with human capital, social capital, natural capital, cyberspace capital, or omnicapital, is considered unacceptable activism by that cabal. That is what I was accused of by the Press Gallery! Why the American people should accept living under the dictatorship of one narrow segment of "capital" is an embarassment. We are all engaged in a partisan enterprise guided by our unshakable cognitive program which is of uneven quality. The choice of news -- that which is included and that which is excluded -- starts with a deep and unavoidable point of view. Anyone who thinks this is not true needs to seriously reexamine the subject.
If Americans and all others people want to shape their communities and global civilization in some profound way through genuine political dialogue toward human betterment, then we must all proceed as committed partisans of that cause. Seeking what is really true that we feel can advance our noble cause may not be the "neutral" way but it may most likely be the best way.
Political distortions can be overcome only by an adequate social counterforce, which has the capacity to recognize the distortions and correct them. Paradoxically, the systems of knowledge organization have historically strived for neutrality in alphabetical or numerical systems of indexing that has remained paralyzed during the last half century spanning the whole period of the "Information Age"! I explain this horrible outcome of the search for neutrality more fully in my essay on Knowledge Organization. At its core the quest for a disinterested process of, knowledge organization and knowledge management is an inadequate foundation, "For Betterment of Humankind." As Eric Jantsch observes,
"this goal is the work of a, partisan viewpoint, which starts from the assumption that man has become the chief actor in the process of shaping and controlling the system. It may be called the anthropomorphic angle of view which, by definition, cannot be "objective." Nor would it be possible at all to form the notion of an integral education/innovation system without a purposive, and thus "subjective" view in mind."
The above, unsigned manifesto is by User:Omnicapital, with a minor edit by anon user 141.156.199.195. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
