User:Bigjoe5216
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Bigjoe5216 - Who I Am, And What I Do
Believing nothing of what I read or see, except that which can be proven, I am an iconoclastic investigator & researcher of 18th Century History connected with Philadelphia.
[edit] The Foot-Note Police
I specialize in busting myths concerning 18th century personalities, unreported historical events, as well as faulty, shoddy, poorly written accounts by authors who 'cookie-cut-paste & smear' endless volumes of erroneous citations & footnotes which were lifted or borrowed from other "historians" and "authors" who themselves were also too lazy to actually read the base materials which they cited. It is as simple as checking the homework of first graders to catch the cheating culprits.
Be that as it may, I thank all authors of good and bad publications. The reward received for the vigilant checking of source materials, discovering who plagiarized who, is an education in the process of research and discovery.
[edit] Observations, Criticisms & Compliance of Wikipedia's Policies
The main fault found in Wikipedia is their own rules which require citing only published authors, (any author), a neutral point of view, and no original research.
This practice contributes to diminish the very accuracy which Wikipedia seeks. Many a published author's excerpts, citations & footnotes do not contain a Neutral Point of View, as they already have a slanted perspective of the historical facts built into to it.
Much of the cited materials used also lack any Original Research leading to stagnation and regression of history.
Original Research may be as simple as quoting or citing an unread, unknown antiquated book, or unpopular book, or unpopular author with a contrarian point of view.
Original Research may be anything with which an editor, censor or reader disagrees.
A Neutral Point of View, may only be achieved when Original Research is also present. Unfortunately, Original Research produces the discovery of the truth. Truth is not neutral, as it exposes the flaws of previously publications.
The very term "Original Research" is an arbitrary catch phrase used by Wiki as an eraser. It is very similar to and tantamount to the suppression of publication by an institution (like a church or government), if it is feared "the truth" would disrupt or destroy their status quo.
These arcane practice of suppression will only serve to perpetuate the use of more of the same erroneous materials ad infinitum — ad nausium. On a personal note, it is very difficult to stand in silence when reading erroneous materials posted on this website.
[edit] Unpublished Research of An Unpublished Author
I have been working for the last eight years on compiling an accurate historical account of 18th century Philadelphia and the surrounding areas. I believe that eventually my "discoveries" as well as those of other "revisionists historians" will be published and quoted, thus making the availably body of information here on Wikipedia more accurate.
[edit] Quotes & Notes
"What is History,' said Napoleon, 'but a fable agreed upon' - Ralph Waldo Emerson - 1848
"A Scottish philosopher once said that history is a set of lies agreed upon." - Enos Abijah Mills - 1920
"History is a set of lies agreed upon" - Numerous modern day authors attribute these words to Napoleon, but itself is "a fable agreed upon."
"From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step" - Napoleon Bonaparte (Said this to the Abbé de Pradt more than once.)
"The exact contrary of what is generally believed is often the truth." - Jean de La Bruyère
So what did Napoleon actually say? That would fall under original research and is prohibited!
