Jump to content

User:Wispanow: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 21: Line 21:
{{User aviation}}
{{User aviation}}
{{Boxboxbottom}}
{{Boxboxbottom}}

==Reality, Objectivity, Neutrality and Valuations relating to Wikipedia==
'''[[Reality|Clearly]] [[Objectivity|can]] [[Bias|see]] [[Scientist|me]] [[Sex|living]] [[Society|in]] [[Earth|an]] [[Superstring theory|minimum]] 4-[[Dimension|dimensional]] [[universe]] with minimum 4-dimensional [[General relativity|relations]] as [[Perception|perceived]] [[Genius|by]] [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]] ([[Women's rights|and his wife?]]).'''


This is [[Fundamental science|fundamental]] for any [[knowledge]] or [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]] [[Time|today]] and needed for knowing the '''position''' as well as '''direction''' of anything related to [[human]]s.

What does this mean?


;"Sparks" of Reality

To see reality means to have an absolutely secure position. Having NOT an exact position means if someone runs in a direction (for example gain more money) he probably achieves this, but may be surprised if the reached position is not the wanted. Discovered "Sparks of Reality" can be used as an anchor for [[Scientific method|finding evidence and for a proof]].


;Objectivity
;Objectivity

Revision as of 12:45, 22 June 2013

Objectivity

This is the correct application (by for example scientific method) of current knowledge. Truth, science, knowledge relates here. By far the easiest to prove.

Equaling the Balance, Unique Neutral point of view

Very difficult to achieve, and impossible to prove in reality because relations are everywhere. Law and judiciary are often examples of getting an appropriate judgment by "proofs" which are relative and do not fulfill a absolute objectivity. The time clearly is relevant (many "history" pages in Wikipedia), needs balance and often makes me lamenting ;-).

Yours, mine, any personal viewpoint

May be any of the above, but is by far mostly (we do not have the time to make an investigation about every statement we have to give) biased. For example even the most serious, earnest scientist prefers some kind of food (without proof, probably biased ;-) ).


Fictitious Example of Viewpoints about 1+1=?

Number of humans stating viewpoints "Biased" viewpoints Neutral viewpoint Objective journalism Objective viewpoints Reality
10 humans state 1+1=3 Any, but faction "3" is dominating 1+1=3 1+1=3 1+1=3 1+1=2
10 humans state 1+1=3
10 humans state 1+1=4 		Any, but often faction "3" is fighting with "4" "3", "4" presented A) "3", "4" presented
B) 1+1=3.5 		A) "3", "4" presented
B) 1+1=3.5
C) Result unknown 		1+1=2
10 humans state 1+1=3
10 humans state 1+1=4
1 human claims to know 1+1=2 		Any, but often
faction "3" is fighting with "4", and/or
both together against "anti-democratic", "know-all" "2" 		"2", "3", "4" presented A) "2", "3", "4" presented
B) "2" is outlier: 1+1=3.5
C) Average: 1+1=3.4
D) "2" is true: 1+1=2 		A) "2", "3", "4" presented
B) "2" is unproven: 1+1=3.5
C) Average: 1+1=3.4
D) "2" recognized: 1+1=2
E) Result unknown 		1+1=2
10 humans state 1+1=3
10 humans state 1+1=4
100 humans claim to know 1+1=2 		Any, but mostly
faction "2" is suppressing "3" and "4" as inappropriate,
and "3" and "4" feeling suppressed, claiming minority rights, are not able to join 		"2", "3", "4" presented 1+1=2 A) "2", "3", "4" presented
B) 1+1=2
C) "2" is disproven: 1+1=3.5
D) Average: 1+1=2.3
E) Result unknown 		1+1=2
10 humans state 1+1=3
(Two humans are unknown, five are female (one of them aged over 65, 3 below 18), one is a mayor of a small town and has previously often stated that 1+1=6, but after being accused of receiving money from "Company 6" he quickly changed to 1+1=1, was quickly accused that his wife has shares from "The one and only" company, and finally changed to 1+1=3, the two others are his wife and his assistant)
10 humans state 1+1=4
(Eight humans are presented in a poll published in an article of "Publisher of the final Truth", which claims to have many scientists and experts, one has several academic degrees and published many books, some of them at "Publisher of the final Truth", and one is a known homosexual)
100 humans claim to know 1+1=2
(42 are unknown, one has a Ph-D degree, two are known believers of the "2 by 2" church (previously they believed 1+1=1[1][2], and are continuing support for this belief), three are...., one is...., others are.....) 		Any, but mostly
faction "2" is suppressing "3" and "4" as inappropriate,
and "3" and "4" feeling suppressed, claiming minority rights, are not able to join 		"2", "3", "4" presented in the UNIQUE neutral viewpoint Difficult, but mostly
1+1=2
is seen as appropriate 		A) "2", "3", "4" presented
B) 1+1=2
C) "2" is disproven: 1+1=3.5
D) Average: 1+1=2.3
E) Result unknown 		1+1=2

Journalism can have any of these viewpoints, and has mostly mixed viewpoints. Good, serious journalism (which includes somehow Wikipedia) is often seen as a mixture of objectivity and neutrality:

  1. Viewpoints which are seen as "wrong" by most "reliable sources", are excluded; violating neutrality.
  2. "Unknown" is nearly ever no new and even if, no interesting message; although some journalists will have this viewpoint, they do not publish, and others will post different viewpoints which violate neutrality.

Note that "violating neutrality" is valuated neutral: neither "positive" nor "negative". Reason is that it may present an unreal viewpoint, to give 1+1=3 and 1+1=4 similar room than 1+1=2, even if in the second last example the room is weighted per human percentage. The "right" result: 1+1=2 may be questioned "inappropriately" in the view of the reader by "wrong" results. So that depends on:

a) who are the readers,
b) in which manner will they read the text and
c) which result represents reality.


What i do at Wikipedia

My intention is/was mainly to balance neutrality. I am/was active in:

Nikon <=> Canon

As i saw the Nikon DSLR pages, they looked not so nice and were smaller than the Canon DSLR pages. Probably because Canon had less noisier sensors from 2003-2007 especially in its budget DSLRs, or additionally Canon users are younger and more Internet-compatible because Nikon is the more traditionally top-brand. Already done work on many pages.

Added the List of Nikon compatible lenses with integrated autofocus-motor, which Nikon users need.

Airbus <=> Boeing

Imho the USA authorities failed by letting McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed being closed or bought by Boeing. This was foreseen by European States, and in order not being dominated by a monopoly, they founded Airbus. Even if they had done anyhow, against two big well-established companies, McDonnell Douglas+Lockheed AND Boeing it would have been a lot harder for Airbus to find any space for its products.

Done some things to improve the balance of the Airbus articles compared to the All-American Boeing ones, last: Airbus_A320_family impovements, especially the A320_Enhanced section, and Airbus Executive and Private Aviation and others.

Balance the Neutrality in Human Rights

This is the most difficult task, and i am actually most engaged in this. Also i am sure i am biased as anyone is, as a scientist i think its best to write about topics which i know best. This are:

  • Germany (No wonder). I am somehow biased about this, but strictly controlling my output on article pages (not so much on talk pages). Imho USA and UK haven´t totally stopped anti-german war propaganda since more than a century.
  • Religion topics. I am atheist, and i worked hard to achieve that. Therefore i am not biased by any religion, and i do not like any of them AND do not hate any of them. Thats too long ago for me, to have any emotions about that.

Racist Discrimination in the English Wikipedia?

Don´t Panic, nearly everything is fine. And i love Wikipedia, and imho Americans are the world champions in creating open-minded structures like that. Congratulations. Even the English Wikipedia is imho preferable, because the German one among many other differing rules has changed its rules to nearly exclude IP editors, one of the decisions which was enforced by a lobby of administrators i do NOT like. Jimbo Wales, who currently is learning the German language, has for example made a poll about Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions, which are imho a bad idea (even?/because? (i don´t know) its implemented in Germany, and i already said that those administrators are somehow strange, even?/because? (i think mostly even) they are German).


But there is a not very big country in the center of Europe, which is surrounded by... (Ok, i´m not Asterix, and even getting more Obelix style, loosing brain cells, but instead getting a lot more cells around the center of my body).


Now, serious, although i am German and are somehow biased, but imho are not the only one, i have seen some articles in Wikipedia which are biased and/or presenting a not neutral viewpoint about Germany related to Human Rights, which is by far exceeding any normal extent. After reading that for years and trying to change it unsuccessfully, in March 2010 i decided to be more engaged in this.


To be continued.


Countries of the earth i visited:


[3]Artf


This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wispanow.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wispanow&oldid=561056655"