Contents 1 The Historians versus the Psychological and Sociological Savvy?? 1.1 A penny for my thoughts 1.2 Definitions 1.3 No sourcing required 1.4 The “Pope’s Blessing” 1.5 Nutshell: “The Four Sides” 1.5.1 A Very Ripe Example 1.5.2 Application of the “Four Sides” to Ockham’s Razor 1.5.3 Another Dance Partner 1.6 Conclusions concerning Remote viewing situation 1.7 Conclusions about Wikipedia’s envious (and underutilized) position 2 A Welcome from Alexfusco5! 2.1 Thank You! 2.2 Remote Viewing

[edit] The Historians versus the Psychological and Sociological Savvy??

[edit] A penny for my thoughts

There are four sides to every story. It is to the sociologist’s heart’s delight to find a working example, and no surprise at all to find a working example here, on Wikipedia.

Yet I was surprised and delighted.

[edit] Definitions

Wikipedians, or otherwise editors, contribute and support Wikipedia.

• Some Wikipedians do their work here in a positive manner
• Some Wikipedians are not benevolent

Wikipedians are not created equal

• Some are rank and file "honey bees"
• Some manage the project

• Those who manage set the tone of the Project

For the purposes of this discussion, the name Wikipedia, as follows, denotes Wikipedia management and Project tone.

[edit] No sourcing required

I will not provide any sourcing to the woolgathering that’s taking place here, for to do so would elevate my talk page to article status and subject it to the usual rigors. That’s not to say sources do not exist, for indeed, this business of Wikipedia’s affect on modern media is very well documented. Clearly this envious situation is somewhat lost upon—if not completely misunderstood by—groups of Wikipedia editors.

• This ignorance—feigned or actualized—is very dangerous to the emerging trends concerning Wikipedia’s recently acquired and growing influence. Unchecked and unrecognized by Wikipedia’s leadership, Ockham’s Razor will shred POV articles under the banner of NPOV, thus permanently silencing Wikipedia on the topic.

• A successful purge unfetters and empowers those who wish to silence truth.

[edit] The “Pope’s Blessing”

To sum the current and abundant theories: A successful article on Wikipedia confers upon it a certain “Pope’s blessing” of sorts, whereby the said article assumes a “Wikipedia Seal of Truth.”

[edit] Nutshell: “The Four Sides”

The four sides theory (also exhaustively researched and citable) sums thusly: Any idea of merit is four sided. Those four sides are composed of the completely equal but opposite views, and the higher and lower paths to truth.

• Each opposing view claims the higher path, but both cannot occupy the same space under any circumstances.

• Or can they?

[edit] A Very Ripe Example

Remote viewing is a great example, and it’s here for us to behold. A Google search of “remote viewing” places Wikipedia at the number one slot in search rankings.

• Thus, to the horror of Wikipedians, this nonsense of remote viewing threatens to pollute enquiring minds with a snake oil salesman’s view of reality.
• The Remote viewing article, must therefore, be silenced and vanquished, once and for all!

Seemingly diametrically opposed, remote viewing proponents appear equally threatened by Wikipedia’s “Pope’s Blessing.”

• A successful NPOV article on Wikipedia will serve to submerge otherwise successful commercial remote viewing enterprises.

• For that’s how Google works: the best site wins.

• Google wonks don’t give a Tinker’s damn about truth.

• The Remote viewing article, must therefore, be silenced and vanquished, once and for all! (Is there an echo in here!?!)

Roasting and toasting the Remote viewing article enables an albeit weird, but successful dance, whereby Wikipedians and Remote viewing proponents not only salsa upon the same “path of truth,” but also find themselves famously beautiful dancing partners, as well!

[edit] Application of the “Four Sides” to Ockham’s Razor

The discussion at Remote viewing can be reduced to the following pattern:

• Party A posts materials and/or links to materials seemingly in support of Party A's position.

• Party B declares the submitted material “fringe” or POV, tagging some of it thusly, or outright deletes it.

• Party A succeeds at Ockham’s Razor by eliminating via proxy all purportedly POV Remote viewing material from Wikipedia without wounding their cause. For once something is deemed fringe, tripe, or POV, it can never again gain a foothold in Wikipedia. The damning part is that the process is protracted, and seems to serve Party B’s path to truth.

• Party B also succeeds at Ockham’s Razor by identifying and eliminating Party A's dancers and Party A's efforts, but to who’s ultimate benefit?

• Party A wins the contest when Wikipedia tires of the dance and eliminates the article altogether.

• Any unrelated site, especially one that succeeds at NPOV, that outranks Party A member’s sites is best eliminated by encouraging the opposing party’s application of Ockham’s Razor.
• Succeeding thusly, once again levels the playing field for Party A.

• Party B wins the contest when it tires of the dance and eliminates the article altogether. (Is there an echo in here!?!)

[edit] Another Dance Partner

Party C is the average internet end user. According to several citable sources (No, I’m not providing any, otherwise this Talk page elevates to an Article, as digressed earlier.), Google is the number one search engine. Wikipedia is number two, although not so from a strictly defined “search engine” definition.

• Definitions be damned, we’re talking about “facts” and “truths” here, aren’t we?

Assuming Party C is your typical Web researcher, Google gets the first shot at Remote viewing.

• Hmmm… The Wikipedia article is the number one result (following those self-serving “Sponsored Link” results).

Party C navigates to Wikipedia discovering a rather thought-provoking row.

• Surprise! Remote viewing is controversial.

• Should the user miss the discussion page (and history) favoring the article instead, a great deal of Party A’s assets remain undamaged, as Party B sometimes doesn’t flag, but deletes whole cloth instead.

• Tagging and flagging is far more damaging to Party A’s position, if indeed Party A is operating from an “anti-Pope’s Blessing” stronghold.

[edit] Conclusions concerning Remote viewing situation

The Remote viewing article is currently at the stage where neither party can claim victory. Indeed, victory is impossible for either party under the current “Rules of Warfare.”

• Simply put, if Wikipedia chooses to wash the article, Wikipedia silences itself and eliminates its top ranking regarding the search terms “remote viewing.”

• “Service to Truth” is the bloody casualty.

• If remote viewing proponents somehow succeed in successfully posting otherwise declared partisan or POV information, and Wikipedia reverses its current slash and burn policy in favor of tagging and flagging, then Wikipedia retains the higher search ranking indefinitely.

• Remote viewing proponents cannot claim the top ranking among themselves, so long as Wikipedia persists as a threat.
• If, however, remote viewing proponents are operating from a POV perspective and not threatened by Wikipedia, then Wikipedia operates as a portal, and the number one ranking serves that interest.

• Moreover, the current Discussion page provides a window into the thinking of Party A and Party B. The discussion best serves Party A when explored by Party C, as Party A appears to be a victim of censorship. The alleged censoring of Party A provides Party C with a perfect term paper, as scholarly work demands NPOV, and Wikipedia is doing all of the heavy lifting.

• The rigors of “Truth” make strange bedfellows

[edit] Conclusions about Wikipedia’s envious (and underutilized) position

• Wikipedia’s role in media is an organic and evolving fact of sociology and psychology.

• Wikipedians are largely historians, and historians, as a group, are always last to arrive at the scene.

• Operating from a strictly “historical” bias, Wikipedians overlook current trends in sociological movement, and will arrive last to write their own epitaph, if current patterns prevail.

• Wikipedia leadership must educate itself and retool, or the sociologically and psychologically wise will twist the project utilizing the historian’s own tools to disembowel.
• As an instantly available worldwide encyclopedic source of information, and one not constrained by the woes of its print counterparts, the typical Wikipedian's "Historian's Approach" is not only intellectually hidebound, but an increasingly bankrupt approach to sharing truth.

• This policy deserves examination and remediation.

Where I’m not preaching to the choir: All of this is respectfully submitted for your rumination. --Maxwellordinary 20:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Welcome from Alexfusco5!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Maxwellordinary! I am Alexfusco5, and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!