User:Andering J. REDDSON

Template:Puic

This Wikipedian knows better than to assume “Good Faith.”

I'm just tired of signing things to have my name obscured.
Oh, and Wikipedia is the WORST source of information in the universe. Worse, even than the Weekly World News. I began my “Quest” to clean up Wikipedia after I had a paper rejected because I used Wikipedia as a source. (Actually, I received an “F” on the paper.)
When Wikipedia CAN be used as an unchallengeable source, then I will consider myself “Mission Complete.”

With the exception of some very minor edits (a typo or something of that nature), I have tried to avoid direct editing of pages until it’s been reviewed in the effective talk page; That’s not BOLD, but it does avoid problems in the long run; For example I’m waiting for someone to comment on my Libyan Civil War contribution before I add it. If someone adds it for me, well I know what they based it one, and since I know I added something good and correct without a spin, then good. This does mean an unusually high post count to a relatively low page edit ratio, but I submit that’s a good thing (see below.)

What is needed to transform Wikipedia from the worst source to potentially the best source:

• Lock all pages. As it stands now, any idiot with a thought in their head can edit any page they want, with very little in terms of ramifications. A simple example: The M-16 page was edited to remove all the material and replaced with “A crap gun taken by noobs in Call of Duty.” or some such. His ramifications: The “vandalism” was reverted. Nothing more.
• Require all Writers be verified to be at least Subject Matter Students: That is, they can VERIFY that they do, in fact, know of what they speak. The list of examples goes on and on, but a relatively simple example would be the current (16 August, 2011) status of the “Non-Lethal Weapons” page: Caltrops and Batons, both of which are legally considered lethal weapons, are listed. Sure, they’re not guns; That doesn’t make them “non-lethal” by any definition. I can not fathom how something so simple, the idea that you CAN, in fact kill someone with a baton and cause grievous bodily injury, potential PERMENETLY, can so simply be dismissed, but it’s clear that nobody who truly understands the subject matter actually attempted to write the material; They even went so far as to list anti-vehicle defense as non-lethal (if it can disable a vehicle, it can more than kill a person, if no other way than in the process of disabling the vehicle).
• Require those wanting to be a Writer to post a bond of $XXXX to be a writer; This will give writers an incentive NOT to pass dis-information (such as the aforementioned NLW complaint). If you maliciously propagate mis- or dis-information, you forfeit your bond. Once is an accident: Twice, unfortunate. Three times you will have a LOT of explaining to do.
• Requiring any edit to be presented for review on the effective talk page before it can be added outright; If it goes up for 2 weeks without a single comment on it’s validity, then it can go up as is. Otherwise, it will have to be worked out. (This could actually REDUCE the effective time; If twenty people all work out the issue in 2 hours, then ¿why stall the inevitable?)
• Ruthlessly crushing ALL forms of anti-Semitism; Wikipedia has become a recruiting center for anti-Semitic muckraking of the worst form- Pretension of “academia.” (I will expand this as soon as possible.)
• Abandon the BOLD policy; This policy encourages all edits, EVEN AND ESPECIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE ONES, on on-going events, based on half-truths, lies, propaganda, dis-information campaigns, all under the cover of supposed “bold” editing.
  This isn’t the morning paper, and it’s not CNN. It shouldn’t try to pass itself off as any form of journalism- Only as a recorder of fact afterwards (in other words, a history book). It’s a failed policy, and one Richard JEWELL would no doubt appreciate- Had it been in place back then.

My Signature.

It has been noticed that my signature is not kind to Wikipedia. NO SHIT. And until steps are taken to turn Wikipedia around, so it will remain. The truth often hurts, but I will never lie for anyone else’s “consensus.” Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Comparing Wikipedia to the Weekly World News is nothing new. Go to any college; It’s not permitted to be used as a source for a reason (as noted above).

(W)hile some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted. Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion. In short, that you don’t like the word Brocage does NOT make it wrong.