From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Personal
|
Beliefs and practices
 |
This user believes in the existence of God. |
 |
This user observes the dietary laws of Kashrut. |
|
|
Preferences
| . The |
This user does not put two spaces after a full stop. |
| CE |
This user is in favor of Common Era terminology |
|
|
Interests
 |
This user enjoys reading almost anything. |
 |
This user has a keen interest in Physics. |
| C# |
This user can program in C#. |
|
[edit] Awards
 |
|
The Original Barnstar |
| I hereby present this award to Itzse in recognition of his efforts to improve Wikipedia with new, well-researched, and well-linked articles and edits, and for maintaining such a genial correspondence about the editorial process. Keep up the great work! Yoninah (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC) |
[edit] Some of my thoughts
- He who only knows how to talk, but cannot hear what others have to say - is talking to himself.
- If the grass isn't greener on the other side - then you have already seen the other side.
- One of the secrets to longevity - is to make the best out of every situation.
[edit] Some of my views
From time to time I'll share my thoughts and philosophy pertaining to many issues that come up in Wikipedia.
Before I do that, we need to answer an important question; is it at all a good idea to disclose our philosophy and views here? Shouldn't we rather be vague and leave everyone in the dark of our intentions? Isn't it better to pretend that we agree with an adversary and that way get more done?
I'm sure that there are many good arguments to be made pro and con. My conclusion is that in the final analysis it is much better to be up front, then to play the pretending game. I have nothing against those who come to a different conclusion, for there are good reasons to differ, and for some people, under their own circumstances, they might be better off not disclosing anything about themselves.
I can only speak for myself; and say how it seems to me. I think that there is nothing wrong in editing articles that are close to someone’s heart; and as a matter of fact, I'm sure that it is exactly the articles which are dear to our hearts, which are the bulk of all the edits on Wikipedia. Problems arise only when people's ego’s get in the way; or when very sophisticated seasoned editors rip them apart; and they don't know how to handle it, where to start to seek help for being wronged. That's when edit wars start. Out of frustration people say many things they shouldn’t say; and disclose a lot about themselves, which in turn anger their adversaries even more.
It is not those edit wars which I'm discussing; which can happen on even the most inconsequential article. It is the most important articles; those which are the most accessed which I have in mind. Those articles are the subject of endless battles as one wave of editors comes and (some) go; and in their place others arrive who think that they just discovered America. Usually those articles pertain to religion or politics; or hatred which is a by-product of religion and politics. The rules of Wikipedia which for the sophisticates are the weapons they use to stab everyone else; those were written by man (occasionally by a women), and is also a product of peoples beliefs or politics, and are in themselves open to change; or at least will eventually be restricted, qualified, conditioned or limited in some way.
Where I’m driving at is this. My experience here shows that in order to make a point, my views were deliberately misrepresented. My experience also tells me that people who are heavily involved; even those capable of hiding their views; are caught off guard and their views come out crisp and clear. Also if someone really wants to know another editors real view; a thorough study of all their edits will tell them more then they want to know. Therefore I decided to write in no uncertain terms exactly where I stand on some important issues and leave nothing to the imagination or misrepresentation.
Needless to say that my views and for that matter your views shouldn’t stand in the way, for any decent person to be able to edit fairly without imposing our views on others. There is enough room here for everybody to have their own views represented in a fair and meaningful way, according to the rules of Wikipedia; but that can only happen if we try to respect each others rights and we work in harmony.
[edit] Wikipedia
The following is my original opinion of Wikipedia.
What motivates me here is the thought that I can make a difference. My goal is to educate the world in general and Jews in particular, and I believe that Wikipedia is exactly the vehicle for that. I think that Wikipedia rivals the invention of the Gutenberg Press and has the potential to become the main disseminator of knowledge. I feel that I have a lot to contribute and would like to take part in this noble endeavor.
Although my time is precious and quite limited; what drives me here is the thought that just a few minutes of my time can educate all of mankind, not just now but forever. I have already seen the fruit of my labor as some of my edits have already shown up in newspapers and scholarly journals who quote verbatim from Wikipedia. In general, mundane knowledge I tend to leave to others. Where I feel I am mostly needed is on topics relating to Jews and Judaism, especially Jewish history where I feel an obligation to clarify.
I consider myself a very open minded individual and can tolerate other people’s views. No subject is taboo to me. What I cannot tolerate is intentional fraud, duplicity and pretension.
Although I sometimes get involved in controversial articles, I am not here to force my point of view on anyone. Views contrary to my own do not bother me if incorporated in good faith with proper references. Needless to say, I am committed to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia.
I believe in pressing the issue, which means that it's better to tackle an issue head on and expose it, then to suppress it; in the long run the truth will win. An example is the article I created on the so called "Canaanite gene" which has more with politics then with genetics. It's a legitimate entry in Wikipedia as it is being used as a "scholarly" argument to further a fraudulent point of view. A look at that article will tell you, that it's really called the "Phoenician gene" and that Palestinian Arabs are as much Canaanites as all other Arabs and Jews are. I'm sure that at some point that article will crystallize and debunk exactly what it purports to prove.
If you feel that I erred, I would be grateful if you pointed it out to me, as all human beings are prone to error. To admit it, that's what makes an angel.
[edit] Self imposed temporary suspension as a Wikipedian
The following is the reason for suspending myself as a Wikipedian from 09/12/2007 to 11/15/2007.
The time has come to re-evaluate and reflect on my position as a Wikipedian. My experience on Wikipedia has been mixed. After I have given Wikipedia the better part of my leisure time, what do I actually have to show for it? On the one hand most of my edits have withstood the test of time which is testimony to a correct approach and a correct outlook on what to edit and how to edit and needless to say, the selection of correct information. On the other hand, I have been very disappointed with Wikipedia as a whole. I once had a great enthusiasm for Wikipedia but it turns out that it was based on a mistaken perception that Wikipedia has a built in self correcting mechanism to make sure that eventually every page will be correct. However my experience here with about 2000 edits proved otherwise. In the course of editing, I have encountered outright anti-Semitism; which in my case turned out easy to deal with, and not withstanding attempts to subvert some edits, they are still standing. My bad experience was in the articles pertaining to the Middle East conflict. There I have seen that correct information doesn’t count; truth doesn’t count; but worst of all even the objection to POV doesn’t count. It turns out that it is a combination of the whim, prejudices, alignments, power and maneuvering capabilities of editors that will in the end carry the day.
One of the articles where this is vividly displayed is the Palestinian people page. That page was once called Palestinians which is short for today’s Palestinian Arabs; or if referring to pre-1948 would include all the inhabitants of Palestine including Jews. I tried getting that page to be called what it should be called, which is the neutral term "Palestinian Arabs", but I couldn’t get it by, the pro-Palestinian lobby. The second best name "Palestinians", which although controversial, is at least how they are called by the world and is actually the name the article had for a number of years; almost went through, it had a strong consensus; but again Wikipedia’s pro-Palestinian lobby railroaded it. So the only thing left to do with an unfair POV title was to have the introduction of the article clearly say that the term "Palestinian" is controversial and that there are two sides to the story. That’s how it should have been, if Wikipedia was to be a neutral Encyclopedia. But alas, not only was it subverted, but to add insult to injury the word “nation” was added to the intro with the intention of using Wikipedia to actually concoct a nation out of the blue, something that never was and still isn’t.
It should be un-necessary to say that sure the Palestinians are "people" (human beings); it is not that they are people which is in dispute; it is making them "a people", a nationality which is in dispute. But some have tried to paint me as saying so, to catch your sympathy; although they know full well that, that’s not what I’m saying and disputing; another trick up their sleeve.
On that page, I had to deal with what I believe is a POV pusher who when pressed to the wall would talk for the sake of talking while at the same time holding the other finger on the trigger and doing what she wanted regardless of the outcome of the discussion. She never looses an argument because either her opponent gives up or she declares herself the winner. The bottom line is that the page is a beautiful propaganda page for the POV of the Palestinians.
Therefore I have decided to leave that page for now and watch from the outside to see what happens. To me this page is the barometer of Wikipedia. If this page will become neutral then there is hope that Wikipedia will live up to its expectations and can become a neutral Encyclopedia; but if it fails then it would tell me that the great experiment called Wikipedia has failed and being a Wikipedian is a major waste of time, because the bigots will in the end reap its rewards.
I am imposing on myself a temporary suspension as a Wikipedian and will stay aside and watch. Occasionally I might edit something if I have a good reason for it, but by and large I’ll be watching from the outside.
[edit] A reevaluated Wikipedian
For the last two months I suspended myself as a Wikipedian. I think it was a great experience to watch from the outside how things work or rather don’t work. Yes I reevaluated my progress or lack of it and read what many other Wikipedians who had similar experiences as me have to say about it. I must say that it was a breath of fresh air seeing that my experience isn't unique and many a Wikipedian have left in disappointment. What some have to say is mighty profound (I'll have to write about it when I get a chance to put them together). I recommend it to everyone who finds themselves in the same situation. My personal opinion is that Wikipedia has failed and will never achieve its goal unless its inner workings change, and even then it’s highly questionable if it can change. What Wikipedia is already and will grow in the future is that it is the largest collection of knowledge ever assembled with some knowledge not to be found anywhere else (thanks to original research), and by and large it serves mankind with an enjoyable way of finding information even though quite a bit is convoluted and biased knowledge. I am totally in agreement with those publications that refuse to accept articles where its information is gleaned from Wikipedia. In short, I'm back with no great expectations.
For those who would like to familiarize themselves with what I've written; here are a few links for starters. It's interesting to read the links to essays from those articles.
Here is an example of a failed mediation between one of the brightest and most briliant editors, who was up against a wall; trying to come to terms with someone the mediator described as, clearly doesn't "want a compromise or understand what one is".
[edit] Zionism
I am not a Zionist on theological grounds, but am under no illusions; I do believe that most people who are Anti-Israel are also Anti-Semitic and the burden of proof is on them to prove otherwise.
Even though I'm not a Zionist, I will not let the Arabs off the hook for falsifying history and its savagery in murdering my brothers and sisters.
To the rest of the world, and those Arabs not guilty of the above, this is what I have to say: that G-d will hold you accountable for assisting murderers, either by giving aid and comfort to them or by providing political cover under the guise of evenhandedness. No one will be able to claim that "I" didn't do anything, I am innocent. Know that you are represented by your heads of State and you are represented in the United Nations. If they don't represent your conscience then it's imperative on you to do something about it and make it known to them.
I do know that there are a lot of good people out there and have been fortunate to meet many. One of my hero's is Jeane Kirkpatrick may her soul rest in peace. She surely deserves the title Righteous Gentile.
Lastly remember the verses in (Genesis 12:3) "Va'avorcho mevorchecho umkallelcho o'or" where G-d promises Abraham that "I will bless those that you bless, and those that you curse I will curse"; and (Genesis 27:29) where Isaac blesses Jacob "Ororecho orur umvorcheco boruch" that "Those who you curse will be cursed and those who you bless will be blessed".
Criticism of Israel can only be legitimate if the motives are pure. Criticizing Israel and at the same time whitewashing the Arabs as Jimmy Carter did is abominable.
[edit] Started
[edit] Substantial contributions
[edit] Contributions
- 2nd century, 10 things you did not know about Wikipedia, 770 Eastern Parkway , Abraham ben David, Abraham Furtado, Aharon HaLevi, Ahron Soloveichik, Aid and Rescue Committee, Akiba ben Joseph, Akiva Eger, Al-Aqsa Mosque , Aliyah, Amidah, Amora, Amram Blau, Ancient Hebrew units of measurement, Ani Ma'amin, Asher ben Meshullam, Az Yashir Moshe, Bashert, Bernhard von Eskeles, Birkat HaBayit, Birkat HaHammah, Boyan, British Mandate of Palestine, Chaim Kreiswirth, Chaim Tzvi Teitelbaum, Chananyah Yom Tov Lipa Teitelbaum, Chevra Kadisha, Chief Rabbi, Chortkiv, Chortkov, Chutzpah, Classical Hebrew, Council of Four Lands, Credit card, David HaLevi Segal , David Kimhi, Definition of terrorism, Derech Hashem, Dome of the Rock , Dor Yeshorim, Dov Ber of Mezeritch, Ein Kelokeinu, Eli Cohen, Eliezer Waldenberg, Elimelech of Lizhensk, Fast of Gedalia, Frederick II Elector of Saxony, Gadol, Gamaliel II, Gang of Eight, Gedalia ben Achikam, Geulah, God of Abraham, Haftarah, Haidamaka, Halukka, Haman, Har Hamenuchot, Haredim and Zionism, Hershele Ostropoler, Hezbollah, Hillel Lichtenstein, Hillel the Elder, History of antisemitism, History of Frankfurt am Main, Honorifics in Judaism, Hornostaypil, Isaac Abrabanel, Isaac Alfasi, Isaiah Horowitz, Israel Friedmann, Jacob Frank, Jacob Israël de Haan, Jew, Jewish diaspora, Jewish services, Joseph Steinhardt, Judenhut, Kafr Manda, Duke Karl Alexander of Württemberg, Karlin, Khazars, Khazar Correspondence, Kirkpatrick Doctrine, Koliyivschyna, Kol HaTor, Kol Nidre Library of Alexandria, List of Hasidic dynasties, List of Jewish prayers and blessings, List of proxy wars, List of rabbis, Lord George Gordon, Madrid Conference of 1991, Manhig Yisroel, Medzhybizh, Meir Eisenstadt, Meir Eisenstaedter, Meir Shapiro, Menachem Mendel of Kotzk, Meshullam ben Jacob, Mikhail Gorbachev, Nikolsburg, Mikvah, Minhag, Mishkenot Sha'ananim, Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin, Mordecai Benet, Mordecai ben Hillel, Mordechai Yosef Leiner, Moshe Feinstein, Moshe Teitelbaum (Ujhel), Mount of Olives, Naming and speaking of the dead in Judaism, Naphtali Hirsch Treves, Napoleon Bonaparte's "Grand Sanhedrin", Narol, Nasi, Nebuchadrezzar II, Neturei Karta, Nuremberg, Nusach, Old City of Jerusalem, Oslo Accords, Pekalach, Perushim, Pinchus, Pinchas Horowitz, Piyyut, Posek, Poznań, Purim, Rabbeinu Tam, Rafik Hariri, Rashi, Responsa, Resurrection, Rishonim, Ritual washing in Judaism, Ropshitz, Samson Wertheimer, Samuel, Septuagint, Shmuel haKatan, Samuel Schotten, Sanhedrin, Satmar, Second Temple, Seven Years' War, Shabbethai Bass, Shebaa farms, Shimon ben Gamliel, Shimon ben Gamliel II, Shimon ben Lakish, Shmelke of Nikolsburg, Shroud, Shtiebel, Shuckling, Sighet, Simeon, Tahara, Taharah, Taharat hamishpacha, Talmud Torah, Talmudic Academies in the Land of Israel, Tannaim, Tchotchke, Ten Martyrs, Thomas Mathews, Timeline of Israeli leaders, Tzedakah, Tzitz Eliezer, Tzitzit, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, Vaad Hatzalah, Walid Jumblatt, Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky, Yaakov Yitzchak of Lublin, Yechezkel Shraga Halberstam, Yetev Lev, Yeshivish, Yetzer Hara, Yiddishkeit, Yidele Horowitz, Yisachar Teichtal, Yisroel ben Eliezer (The Baal Shem Tov), Yitzchak Meir Alter, Yom Tov Ehrlich, Yonasan Steif, Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, Zealot, Zealotry, Zerachiah ha-Levi of Girona, Zugot
