Criminals always demand tolerance and respect. Without people closing their eyes when they see stupid bullshit, evil could not proliferate. The demand to stay civil, i.e. buy any garbage they sell you and regard it as something meaningful,no matter how blatant it is, is what I see everywhere and particularly in Wikipedia. The world is as bad as it is not because you are not tolerant, it is because you avoid discussing issues for the sake of tolerance. Here is how Feynman, who was always perceived negatively and even certified mentally defected because he always openly told the truth, puts it
instead of addressing myself to political liberty, as Mill did, I wrote about liberty in social occasions - the problem of having to fake and lie in order to be polite, and does this perpetual game of faking in social situations lead to the "destruction of the moral fiber of society.
You see, when I hear about physics, I just think about physics, and I don't know who I'm talking to, so I say dopey things like "no, no, you're wrong," or "you're crazy." But it turned out that's exactly what he needed.
Polite people are sure that if you qualify the content as 'crap' or 'author is idiot' somewhere, you make a personal attack. They know that there cannot be any crap and there is nothing to discuss. Even if there is a crap, you must (be tolerant) and close your eyes. Ignorance and tolerance are necessary to defeat the common sense. This is imposed by our elites, who make money doing disgusting things and teach society not notice that (member Iraq, attacked two times, under blatantly false pretexts). And nobody cares! Anyway, whenever I attempt to discuss the content, I am either ignored or stopped with "personal attack".
The same applies here, in Wikipedia. Wikipedia declares great rules but they seem to be defiantly disregarded by wikipedia owner cliques. They even dare to remove my edits as intolerant, despite wikipedia unacceptable behaviour rules reminds us about Graham Pyramid, which says that responding to tone is unacceptable. Defeating substance by respect is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Yet, this is how its contributors operate. The only way to discuss content seriously, addressing the matter, and how it looks, is considered a "personal attack".
In Wikipedia I mostly try to establish retlationship between things and thus use interwiki links to tie things together.
The most interesting facts are those which can be used several times, those which have a chance of recurring ... What we must aim at is not so much to ascertain resemblances and differences, as to discover similarities hidden under apparent discrepancies ... on looking closer we can generally detect a resemblance; though differing in matter, they approximate in form and in the order of their parts. When we examine them from this point of view, we shall see them widen and tend to embrace everything. This is what gives value to certain facts that come to complete a whole, and show that it is the faithful image of other known wholes. (c) Henri Poincaré
Yet, it seems that people hate to see that things are related. They even call the increased connectedness "reduced cohesion of the text". It is how reverters blatantly violate the Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary rule, as if it does not exist and demand you "do not revert, talk" when they have decided everything for you, they revert and not talk and, moreover, proceed re-revering (as usually, without talk) after one re-revert and punish you with warnings if you respond them the same way. It seems that some creatures know very well how to own Wikipedia. --Javalenok (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Javalenok, may I weigh in on your views. Math requires us to proof connectivity. Seeing it is not enough. I have felt your frustration, if the person reverting is not logged in then undo it! They are too cowardly to use there account, if its a user and it is unjust make sure you have proven with credible citation evidence your point and take it to arbitration there are nasty users out there that hate progress Mkevlar
Surprisingly, I find the Scholarpedia more comprehensive and easy to understand than the Wikipedia articles. Do students pretend to be more advanced and sophisticated than the world top scientists?