|Search user languages|
I realize it is an impossible battle on Wikipedia. The rules are good, brilliant concept, but like i keep saying (below) what good are rules when the 18th century racism still exist, where bullying exist, where bull headed people and you are the only ones editing an article. Moreover where Whiteness, Western normalization of reality pushes everything else aside.
The Great issue of time
Someone said the Jedi are not enough in number to patrol the entire Galaxy. Yes I can contribute much more. But I have to decide serious issues and decide where I invest my energy. Wiki is good, but what happens when quality editors are too few and some ip flies by and washes out years of serious work? When you say let me spend 4 minutes a day, but then you look at the clock and it is 4 hours gone? I have to cut back. In the Qur'an God says "By time, Indeed, mankind is loss,Except for those who have believed and done righteous deeds and advised each other to truth and advised each other to patience." So time is a big deal.
A Balanced Article
No "good article" should ever expose the politics of its editors. You should read it an never know the race, religion, geography, or politics of its editors. But can an article on slavery of African people be balanced when next to no African voices are included? Is that not a form of institutional racism? Where Africans are marginalized as Not R.S over nobodies from the White academic world. A entire article on Africa but no Africans- unless i fight to put one or two names there.
My area of expertise
I am a Muslim African working in South Africa at a University, my field is African identity politics, racism, slavery and Islam in Africa. I have experience within the African American community, the African Diaspora (including those in Israel), and have detailed understanding of issues related to the Pan-African community, or African conscious movement (black consciousness), Afrocentrism. I read the work of Malcolm X (My hero number one and my role model in life), Maulana Karenga, Pilger, Chomsky, Du Bois, Chris Hedges, Garvey, etc. I would like to contribute to Wikipedia to add to what I feel is seriously lacking: And I will quote Alison Baile. In its quest for certainty, Western philosophy continues to generate what it imagines to be colorless and genderless accounts of knowledge, reality, morality, and human nature According to some this represents a conflict of interest, because everyone else can defend Zionism, Eurocentrism , they can be loud and proud Christian editors but with Africans it is a WP:COI.
A reliable source is Not CNN or some out of print book that no one reads
it is backward to think that in our new info world that we need to depend on dusty books for RS. Books that the users of Wikipedia cannot access. Books which are actually not read by many. More merit must be given to the statement, than Oh Noam Chomsky said it, or Bernard Lewis said it. All of them can be dead wrong. esp BBC and its racist view of everything outside of Europe. B.c per Wikipedia Reliable standard as read in these strict terms the world becomes the world through the eyes of the minority and the powerful, hardly an authentic or progressive world. Its that institutional racism again because dissenting African voices, alternative voices get marginalized they do not readily get published. They own no big news networks or publishing houses, no distribution hence not worthy, not notable per Wiki? That has to change--Inayity (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I do not get into it
The biggest issue on Wiki might be poor distribution of diverse quality editors to balance pages. Good pages usually have a large pool of diverse editors. So the processes set up to create a good page actually are good, but do not work without the right environment and ppl. What good are rules and processes when they are flaunted by agenda and dishonest editing? Double standards? ownership issues? Well I can un-watch and put my energy elsewhere. And there is another type of editor who contributes very little, they are more reverters and admins, but while they are vocal on the Talk page, they contribute nothing more to the actual mission of Wikipedia MAKING THE PAGE BETTER It is a simple concept that some seem to struggle with.
||This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject.|
|This section relies largely or entirely upon a single source.|
- . "". Missing or empty