User talk:West world

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Why I don't do Wikipedia

I am signing off Wikipedia. This place is not at all the democratic, consensus-building experiment in self-correcting information that some sheltered information utopianists would like you to think.

I think its more of a place where bullies reign by tirelessly exhausting the rest of us. But then that'll probably change someday.

Til then, for anyone that comes across my little page -- please keep an open mind, a critical spirit and a rigorous commitment to truth and especially wading through the naive inherited common sense of cowards, bullies, demagogues and other haters here on WP.

Love, WW West world 06:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, not quite yet.... West world 00:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Satanic ritual abuse dispute

You seem to think that I am a non believer. I do not see myself as a non believer nor as a believer. In my scientific work and in the chapter about the Netherlands I have always tried to approach satanic ritual abuse in a neutral and objective manner and I have always given the vision of the mpd movement as well as the vision of critics and sceptics. It is true that the chapter about the Netherlands reflects more the vision of critics and sceptics, but that is not because I am a non believer, but because critics and sceptics had a dominant role in the discussion about satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands. The only thing I have done, is summarizing the course of the discussion in the Netherlands.

You are right, it would be great if we could work together to achieve consensus and allow it to reflect divergent opinions. But that was not what Biaothanatoi was doing. He was eliminating my text continuously and replaced it with a biased text about Oude Pekela. If he wanted to achieve consensus and if he wanted that the chapter reflects divergent opinions, he could have written for instance that my text about Oude Pekela reflects the opinion of the Dutch authorities and of most scientists and investigating journalists who have published on that matter in the Netherlands. Then he could emphasize that there is an alternative view and that Jonker and Jonker-Bakker are the advocates of that view, with an elaboration of their research. When he had done that and he had put his vision under my text and did not remove it, I would have kept his text in this chapter. Unfortunately, he did not do that. He removed my text continously. By the way, I was not the only one who saw that neutral texts were replaced by his biased vision. You could take a look at his personal page, and see what other Wikipedians wrote on the talkpage about his removals.

Yours sincerely,

Criminologist1963 12:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Crim: I am not a "believer" in SRA. I know very little about it. My only significant gripe was this: you were making an implicit argument about the causal role of visiting MPD proponents in the Netherlands, arguing that this led to SRA allegations. That is very close to an opinion, and I ask that you, at very least, make it more explicit. Thank you for your metered response. West world 22:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment on my talk page

Added this here so you'd be sure to see it:

Any individual edits to an article may not be able to get every aspect necessary to improve the article. In this case there were several broad and radical changes to the article by AbuseTruth that were left as is amidst other less objectionable changes. There is no easy way to go through and roll out the major ones and keep the minor ones. AbuseTruth's edits were far and away a major violation of the NPOV policy, so somethin needed to be done. While I would prefer to go in to all the articles he/she has edited and perform the individual surgery I feel is necessary to get rid of the major bias being introduced -- and in many cases it's outright campaigning for a view in an article and not even at all stealthy -- but unfortunately my time is limited and one can only do what one can do to get rid of extremely major problems even if some of the smaller points end up less perfect in the process.

You probably remember from previous conversations that I do not feel that your edits have followed the spirit of the NPOV policy, but certainly they were far better than AbuseTruth's. I have no comment on your individual examples above, as I admittedly have not had time to look at them. I would encourage you to readd them if you wish. I would, however, encourage you to be more proactive in getting rid of the more outlandish POV-pushing before adding new content so that your edits do not get lost in the clean up. If you identified the problems before, leaving them there unedited and unchallenged while further making edits makes it very difficult to undo individual parts. DreamGuy 13:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dreamguy, I really appreciate that your tone is less aggressive and that you have taken the time to write this. You have accused me in the past of violating NPOV, something I try to take very seriously. When other editors looked at what I had added, they did not agree with your assessment. I tried to engage you on this at an earlier date on this, my talk page, to no response. Based on your edits, and in good faith, I genuinely think you are continuing to push a particular point of view that does not reflect the majority opinion on False Memory. I do understand your frustration at dealing with people who have tried to edit that article in ways that really are totally egregious. But my own intention is *not* the same as certain other users: ie to completely discount False Memory. But it *is* to improve the entry by calmly explaining why in the world FM is such a contested issue, and presenting as many aspects as are relevant. I would really appreciate it if you would engage the specific edits that I make, and/or others, with the same amount of hard work that is put into them and if you genuinely think I or anyone else is violating NPOV, to really explain your thinking. If you do not have the time to do so, I hope you will refrain from editing. Respectfully, West world 22:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)