User:Operation Spooner: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:35, 25 September 2007

"The most important sovereignty we should protect is the sovereignty of the individual." - Ron Paul

Thinking about leaving Wikipedia due to lack of respect for rules of referencing information. When people can call up anything on a web page or blog as a reference and refuse to obey the referencing rules what is the point? This is why Wikipedia is such an unreliable source of information. I'm tempted to just let it rot. Operation Spooner 06:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. [[1]]

Spooner's take on ownership of articles

Ownership strategies I have observed

Threats. They threaten to "report" an editor if he makes edits that they do not like, conjuring up some made-up policy, hoping that the editor does not research to find out that the policy does not exist.
Deletion. They delete a new edit and tell the editor that he is not allowed to make an edit unless a "consensus" grants permission for the edit, hoping that the editor has not read the Wikipedia Introduction thay says: "Don't be afraid to edit — anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better." The implicit assumption is that they have more of a right to delete than the editor has to add, rather than both parties having equal right to add and delete.
Tattle. They go to a group of admins and make a untrue claim about the editor, hoping that at least one of the admins will not check up on the veracity of the claim and block the editor from editing. One claim that is sometimes used is that the editor is not discussing his edits, because it is known that an administrator will tend to not check the discussion page to see that the editor actually has been engaged in discussions. The chances of this method of succeeding increase slightly if there is more than one person making the claim, so they recruit others to join in.
Hypocrisy. Hyprocritical methods are sometimes employed. For example, they tell the editor that putting material in an ariticle is "edit warring," while hoping that the editor is naive enough to not realize that if that were true then their removing that material would also be edit warring. They may also make this claims to admins in hopes that they will block the editor, but admins typically are privy to the fact that it takes more than one person to "edit war."
Vandalism. They state in the edit summary that they are deleting "vandalism," when they remove an edit they do not like. It is unclear what this is supposed to accomplish, but it is possibly done in order to fool others into thinking that they were actually removing vandalism so that the edit will not be inspected. Other edit summary lies may also be used.
Watchlist. They can't bear to see an article in a way that they do not want it for more than a few seconds, so they spend a lot of time on Wikipedia hitting "my watchlist" over and over making sure that no one has changed the article they're guarding, standing ready to remove edits or try to keep their own edit permanent. This is quite pathetic actually.
Goading. They interrogate the editor, trying to goad him into saying something incriminating so that they can report him to an admin for his comments, without realizing that anyone with average intelligence can see what is feebly and obviously being attempted.
Featured Article strategy. They say because it is a Featured Article, the editor is not allowed to any changes to to it without clearing it through them first. The assumption is that there are special editing rules to follow if there is a gold star on the upper right hand corner of the article. They may go further and attempt use the Featured Article award as leverage by telling the editor that the article with lose that award if you he doesnit clear his edits through them. The assumption here is that the editor cares more about having a gold star on the article than improving the article.

Freedom

"This right of the people, therefore, to resist usurpation, on the part of the government, is a strictly constitutional right. And the exercise of the right is neither rebellion against the constitution, nor revolution – it is a maintenance of the constitution itself, by keeping the government within the constitution. It is also a defence of the natural rights of the people, against robbers and trespassers, who attempt to set up their own personal authority and power." - Lysander Spooner

"The purpose of the Constitution is to restrain government, not to restrain the people." - Ron Paul

"America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long." - Ron Paul

"Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference." - Ron Paul

I support Ron Paul and will vote for him in his bid to be the President of the United States and restrain government power to its constitutional limits.

"Ron Paul is the Thomas Jefferson of our time." - Judge Andrew Napolitano

"It is as if Thomas Jefferson had come back to lead us again. We must support this great man and his movement for freedom, peace and prosperity." - Burton Blumert

"As long as the president limits himself to tearing down illegitimate power, he can be acting in accord not only with minarchism, but also with free market anarchism. Yes, there are very few people I would trust with such awesome responsibilities. Ron Paul is one of them." - Walter Block [2]

Paul a philosophical anarchist? See picture of free-market anarchist Murray Rothbard on his office wall: [3]

An amazing FERVENT BOISTEROUS SPEECH in support of Ron Paul by the Reverend John Killian at the Alabama Straw Poll on August 18 (Which Paul won, btw. Looks like the Mises Institute found an appropriate home): http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZZTpYTQLz6c

MUST SEE FOX NEWS INTERVIEW: Ron Paul mentions Lysander Spooner twice, and endorses peaceful refusal to pay income tax (video): http://youtube.com/watch?v=1ZnzGredcIs

Larry Kudlow of CNBC supports Ron Paul: http://youtube.com/watch?v=qocjt-58o6I

A good Ron Paul video that sums up his traditional American anti-authoritarian perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X96l2o6GGYw

My Heroes: Lysander Spooner (hence my name), Ron Paul, Thomas Jefferson, and others

"Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?" Ronald Reagan First Inaugural Address (which he wrote himself^[1])

^ Murray, Robert K. & Blessing, Tim H. 1993. Greatness in the White House. Penn State Press. p. 80

[1] Murray, Robert K. & Blessing, Tim H. 1993. Greatness in the White House. Penn State Press. p. 80

[1]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 ===Ownership strategies I have observed===
-*1. ''Threats''.  They threaten to "report" an editor if he makes edits that they do not like, conjuring up some made-up policy, hoping that the editor does not research to find out that the policy does not exist.
+#''Threats''.  They threaten to "report" an editor if he makes edits that they do not like, conjuring up some made-up policy, hoping that the editor does not research to find out that the policy does not exist.
-*2. ''Deletion''.  They delete a new edit and tell the editor that he is not allowed to make an edit unless a "consensus" grants permission for the edit, hoping that the editor has not read the Wikipedia Introduction thay says: "Don't be afraid to edit — anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better." The implicit assumption is that they have more of a right to delete than the editor has to add, rather than both parties having equal right to add and delete.
+#''Deletion''.  They delete a new edit and tell the editor that he is not allowed to make an edit unless a "consensus" grants permission for the edit, hoping that the editor has not read the Wikipedia Introduction thay says: "Don't be afraid to edit — anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better." The implicit assumption is that they have more of a right to delete than the editor has to add, rather than both parties having equal right to add and delete.
-*3. ''Tattle''. They go to a group of admins and make a untrue claim about the editor, hoping that at least one of the admins will not check up on the veracity of the claim and block the editor from editing. One claim that is sometimes used is that the editor is not discussing his edits, because it is known that an administrator will tend to not check the discussion page to see that the editor actually has been engaged in discussions. The chances of this method of succeeding increase slightly if there is more than one person making the claim, so they recruit others to join in.
+#''Tattle''. They go to a group of admins and make a untrue claim about the editor, hoping that at least one of the admins will not check up on the veracity of the claim and block the editor from editing. One claim that is sometimes used is that the editor is not discussing his edits, because it is known that an administrator will tend to not check the discussion page to see that the editor actually has been engaged in discussions. The chances of this method of succeeding increase slightly if there is more than one person making the claim, so they recruit others to join in.
-*4. ''Hypocrisy''.  Hyprocritical methods are sometimes employed. For example, they tell the editor that putting material in an ariticle is "edit warring," while hoping that the editor is naive enough to not realize that if that were true then their removing that material would also be edit warring. They may also make this claims to admins in hopes that they will block the editor, but admins typically are privy to the fact that it takes more than one person to "edit war."
+#''Hypocrisy''.  Hyprocritical methods are sometimes employed. For example, they tell the editor that putting material in an ariticle is "edit warring," while hoping that the editor is naive enough to not realize that if that were true then their removing that material would also be edit warring. They may also make this claims to admins in hopes that they will block the editor, but admins typically are privy to the fact that it takes more than one person to "edit war."
-*5. ''Vandalism''.  They state in the edit summary that they are deleting "vandalism," when they remove an edit they do not like. It is unclear what this is supposed to accomplish, but it is possibly done in order to fool others into thinking that they were actually removing vandalism so that the edit will not be inspected. Other edit summary lies may also be used.
+#''Vandalism''.  They state in the edit summary that they are deleting "vandalism," when they remove an edit they do not like. It is unclear what this is supposed to accomplish, but it is possibly done in order to fool others into thinking that they were actually removing vandalism so that the edit will not be inspected. Other edit summary lies may also be used.
-*6. ''Watchlist''. They can't bear to see an article in a way that they do not want it for more than a few seconds, so they spend a lot of time on Wikipedia hitting "my watchlist" over and over making sure that no one has changed the article they're guarding, standing ready to remove edits or try to keep their own edit permanent. This is quite pathetic actually.
+#''Watchlist''. They can't bear to see an article in a way that they do not want it for more than a few seconds, so they spend a lot of time on Wikipedia hitting "my watchlist" over and over making sure that no one has changed the article they're guarding, standing ready to remove edits or try to keep their own edit permanent. This is quite pathetic actually.
-*7. ''Goading''.  They interrogate the editor, trying to goad him into saying something incriminating so that they can report him to an admin for his comments, without realizing that anyone with average intelligence can see what is feebly and obviously being attempted.
+#''Goading''.  They interrogate the editor, trying to goad him into saying something incriminating so that they can report him to an admin for his comments, without realizing that anyone with average intelligence can see what is feebly and obviously being attempted.
-*8. ''Featured Article strategy''. They say because it is a Featured Article, the editor is not allowed to any changes to to it without clearing it through them first. The assumption is that there are special editing rules to follow if there is a gold star on the upper right hand corner of the article. They may go further and attempt use the Featured Article award as leverage by telling the editor that the article with lose that award if you he doesnit clear his edits through them. The assumption here is that the editor cares more about having a gold star on the article than improving the article.
+#''Featured Article strategy''. They say because it is a Featured Article, the editor is not allowed to any changes to to it without clearing it through them first. The assumption is that there are special editing rules to follow if there is a gold star on the upper right hand corner of the article. They may go further and attempt use the Featured Article award as leverage by telling the editor that the article with lose that award if you he doesnit clear his edits through them. The assumption here is that the editor cares more about having a gold star on the article than improving the article.
 ==Freedom==