From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The "Sr Editors" and I may not always see eye to eye, but I try to fight the good fight. If Wikipedia is nothing more than a clearing house for links to citations, why have articular pages at all? It may as well be a place to just create bibliographies, and that seems like a waste of bandwidth. I know a web site that says zebras are mixed race horses, is that a good citation? I once attempted to correct the birth year of someone I grew up with, and was told my research was 'original" and that ImD was NOT a acceptable source of citation. THIS ladies and gentlemen, is the mindset of those potty trained at gunpoint. It is my interest to be a casual infrequent editor who corrects, clarifies and expands where I am able to give the researcher a better view of the subject. I will do this up to and until the time the guardians of the lowest intellectual common denominator ban me.

Better yet, I hope the current trend of "rules" over accuracy becomes reversed, lest the English language version of Wikipedia becomes an intellectual wasteland. Some say I do what I do here to disrupt and mock Wikipedia; quite the contrary. The concept has unlimited potential to some day be a respected source in educated and academic venues, but only if it's scope is expanded beyond the rehashing of sometimes dubious, inaccurate and incomplete already published material, and opens up to factual, current, complete, and up to date information which may be offensive to the low information, reactionary, uneducated or sensitive reader. "Explanation without demonstration leads to mental stagnation". Simply paraphrasing the research of others and citing the original publication without first hand insight of the dreaded "original research" has NO "encyclopedic" value.

Had this been the pre Wiki standard for the dissemination of information, the knowledge of electricity might just now be spreading as a rumor in rural America.

I am fully aware I am but a single voice in the midst of millions of those loyal to the established Wikipedia rules, but my hope is that others will see my point.



Addendum..I believe the recent ‘Bicholim Conflict’ hoax being exposed,goes to bolster the points I made above