From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not agree to multi-license my contributions, as described below:

	Multi-licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License versions 1.0 and 2.0
I agree to multi-license my text contributions, unless otherwise stated, under the GFDL and the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license version 1.0 and version 2.0. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my contributions under the Creative Commons terms, please check the CC dual-license and Multi-licensing guides.

[edit] ==

Deleting a perspective is equivalent to banning a book. All info is relevant as long as the headding is appropriate. It is afterall our Job to report.

What do you think Wiki should more closely resemble of these two comments

Regurgitation of Mainstream Oversimplifications and Political Consensus 

or

Exposition of Hard Facts and Mainstream Oversimplifications

?

I am a stub advocate and I have no hesitations in starting one considering the way they grow into excellent pieces of info which make Wiki sometimes a superior source of reference.

I am an inclusionist only in that I believe an article should always have links to other topics which might have a connection. Besides this, I would always recommend breaking up an article into clearly labeled sections or even seperate articles for disambiguation.

I am a devil's advocate you might find me arguing valliantly on inclusion of a POV only to discover that I am not a supporter of that opinion. I do this because I am fighting for TRUE NEUTRALITY. NPOV means reporting the various POVs without bias. I am not defending what you say I am only defending your right to say it.

Some people don't like me. Check the history pages. If their name does not appear in an article list often at all for any major edits before mine does on the history it is likely they have made it their duty to be a watchdog over me.

If you think you know me alreacdy and have seen people call me a "poor deluded" "crank" "crackpot" "zany" "on a grandiose campaign connecting everything to everything" They talk like this about me simply because I see/know of connections between topics. Why don't you read the discussions I have posted for yourselves. Or better still talk to me. I have no angles and no slants, so I am open to reverting anything that I have posted as long as I am communicated with in a gentlemanly manner. If you are emmotional however I am likely not to read any messages.

Sometimes someone in my department uses this ID because I have not logged out.

Likewise I sometimes use an IP of a computer in the department which I have forgotten to log in on.

Beware of people who belittle and ask for evidence then pretend evidence was never given. Such people have labelled me a delusional crank pretending I never respond with references simply because the scope of my reading and subsequent spheres of knowledge are beyond their own. And they find this inconceivable.

The style of these people has certain characteristics. Though they themselves have no knowledge of the areas and are incapable of editing them, they will confusingly deny the validity of the info yet offer no correction. Then they will immediately vote it for deletion instead of labeling it as a disputed and seeing what happens to improve it. All the time they will not once attempt to edit the article skillfully to correct the points they dispute. This is because they have no knowledge but rather the info in question will go against their world view, though sometimes in a fit of frustration they will because of being incapable of editing another's work and contributing to a groups effort they will entirely re-write, delete whole passages, or even entire articles to satisfy their need for control.

It is because of people like these who are afraid of obscure fact and suppress anything unless it is plagiarised info form an already published encyclopaedic work that wikipaedia might become a worthless encyclopaedia regurgitating in less authentic style whatever one might better find in a Britannica. Wiki has the potential to become authorotative on info other encyclopaedias omit due to lack of combined effort, knowledge or simple oversight but not if people like these continue to operate so well together. I put some obscure info down once about Hephthalites and one of their names called Hua in a stub. Thanks to it not being discovered until much later by the likes of the above, the info about Hua grew so much that it was possible to see the conventional info was wrong and that Hua were a nation for the mostpart independent of the Hephthalites. This only came to light through combined knowledge of many users from different linguistic backgrounds working on stub-like articles. Now these obscure facts once only available to Chinese readers is available to english readers on the net. This is an excellent example of the authorotive possibilities for Wiki info surpassing other encyclopaedias, but the above users seem to be funded to spend 24 hours a day to reduce Wiki's uniqueness so that readers will prefer to subscribe to a standard encyclopaedia. And they do this in the name of keeping Wiki "crackpot-free".

If they come out on top I look forward to being banned and all my contributions weeded out and deleted.

One of my pet peeves are claims to having written an article. I would like to state for the record I have not written any. I have initiated a few and cobtributed to a great many. But Wiki is not a place to publish oneself, rather it is a community of editors. Thus re-write is a word that annos me since it indicates the user's refusal to accept another person's words. The word used should be Edit not re-write. For the same reason I am put-off by people who opt to delete a page when that page's history shows the person to have not even attempted a proper copy-edit.

[edit] Cutting Back

I have found the following sort of pattern occur again and again so many times I realise that it is a maze trap to continue being so dilligent about editing here.

A said 1. 1 happened after 2.

edited into

A said after 2 1 happened.

The problem is the two sentences have two completely different meanings. so then along comes another editer who notices that A never said what the second sentence above said and deletes the whole line as erroneous. The first editor comes along and tries to replace the facts mentioned in the first sentence but her efforts are reverted by the previous editor whose limited knoledge leads him to believe that she is attempting to post erroneous info.

Until this problem is got around, I fear wiki cannot progress beyond a discussion club into a reliable encyclopaedia.

It still remains as perhaps the grandest experiment so far in observing internet communities and behaviour under peers.