User talk:RSuser
Christian conventions
[edit]Actually, I was a part of the Scientology debacle, at least involved in it. What was done there was that all the IPs owned by the Church were blocked, partially because they were adding primarily SPS material and, so far as I remember, that was about all they were doing anywhere in wikipedia. Regarding the SPS in the current article, you may have a point. It would be great if we had access to other sources, and on completion of the blasted category tree I will attempt to locate them myself. I can't speak to the possible biases of other editors, but will, probably Wednesday, maybe Thursday, go over the article in a lot more detail. John Carter (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that you can create BS a lot easier than it takes to clean it up. If the article was pruned back to purely RS then I'd feel like contributing, but not now. I've noted that wiki articles in general are getting very bloated. RSuser (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Believe me, you are far from being the only one who's seen that. One of the questions is whether the SPS are themselves used as sources elsewhere, in which case they probably can be counted as acceptable, if not ideal. That's one of the problems that I think this article and other comparatively uncovered subjects are going to have a lot of, and that's one of the reasons why I said it might take awhile. But that's one of the problems you're going to have when you've got about 3 million English articles and a limited number of overseers. John Carter (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- In the meantime it gets nominated for Good Article when the heavy bias is quite apparent to any group member. This does us quite a disservice. The group publishes nothing of its own as you know. There are some good SPS out there, Telling the Truth is an anti- site but with high editorial standards and religious tolerance.org is also a cut above the rest. The remainder are heavily biased. RSuser (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding your last line, my only remaining hope is that wiki dies under the weight of its own increasing incompetence, sorry to say, but for me, the truth takes precedence over this wiki feel-good barnstar thing that seems to be happening. RSuser (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Believe me, you are far from being the only one who's seen that. One of the questions is whether the SPS are themselves used as sources elsewhere, in which case they probably can be counted as acceptable, if not ideal. That's one of the problems that I think this article and other comparatively uncovered subjects are going to have a lot of, and that's one of the reasons why I said it might take awhile. But that's one of the problems you're going to have when you've got about 3 million English articles and a limited number of overseers. John Carter (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem with the Scientology issue is that it was a myth-buster. No longer can just anyone contribute. Most reasonable people never bought into it that myth anyway, and I certainly don't based on my experience. Not worth it. Bad writers and editors drive out the good. RSuser (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)