User:Concerned Reader
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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Concerned_Reader. |
I am new to Wikipedia, and have reccently gained interest in discussing the content of Wikipedia articles after reading the Kent Hovind article (which to date, is the only article I've felt a need to discuss). I am really enjoying being able to participate in the production, however indirectly, of an online encyclopedia, and feel that I may want to participate on a greater scale in the future if a topic of relevance should "present itself". :)
It is my aim and desire to approach all thingswith understanding and without bias-- that is, to try and see all sides of a situation, take note of what things are fact and what are opinion, and thus make an unbiased evaluation of it. However, I am opposed to the idea of "relativism" (that is, that there is no absolute truth and that things are all relative depending on your opinions, ideologies, etc.).
In commenting on the Kent Hovind article, in particular, I have approached it as thus: Upon my initial reading, I found the article (in my opinion) to be off-balance and got the overall impression that the page was taking a bias on the side of being anti-Hovind. Being that I have had personal experience of Kent Hovind's teachings, I was moved to contribute however I could to help this particular article become as factual and unbiased as possible (while obviously seeking not to advocate a pro-Hovind site either), and am researching to find specific and relevant ways to do so, also adhering to and promoting the Wikipedia standards.
It is obviously necessary to present both advocates' opinions as wells as critics' opinions of a person/theory/etc. and so I do not present a case that either should be removed from this (or any other) article; rather, I am pointing out that giving undue weight to either side, however "relevant" or "reliable" a source may be (in one's opinion), causes an article to, in its entirety, take on bias.
I am open to correction on any matter, and look forward to discussing any and all matters in which I participate with etiquette and all manner of gracefullness and propriety.
Yours Truly, Concerned Reader
