User:Blackworm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The truthfulness of this article has been questioned. It is believed that some or all of its content might constitute a hoax. Please add reliable sources for the claims in the article or comment on the article's talk page. |
WARNING: User:Blackworm is: (1) a man, (2) technically inclined, (3) formally educated, (4) an English speaker, (5) white, (6) aged 15–49, (7) from a majority-Christian country, (8) from a developed nation, (9) from the Northern Hemisphere, and (10) likely employed as an intellectual rather than as a labourer. Please see WP:CSB for help and support for countering this user.
|
Irrelevant Userboxes
|
|
Blackworm's just this guy, you know?[1]
"The Origins of Bias
The average Wikipedian on English Wikipedia is (1) a man, [...]"
"The systemic bias of Wikipedians manifests itself as a portrayal of the world through the filter of the experiences and views of the average Wikipedian."
"Change the demographic of Wikipedia. Encourage friends and acquaintances that you know have interests that are not well-represented on Wikipedia to edit. If you are at a university, contact a professor in minority or women's studies, explain the problem, and ask if they would be willing to encourage students to write for Wikipedia."– WP:BIAS, WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias
It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is to avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.
– Wikipedia: Sock Puppetry (official policy)
"In a nutshell, to avoid disrupting the consensus building process on Wikipedia, editors should keep the number of notifications small (or seek out WikiProjects), keep the message text neutral, and not preselect recipients according to their established opinions."
– WP:CANVAS (behavioural guideline)
"Few people may know that a belief is wrong, but sometimes that is because most are unaware of the evidence against it."
– Wikipedia Neutral Point of View Tutorial
"In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."
– Wikipedia NPOV dispute
"Nine to one African-Americans vote for Barack Obama, 76% of white voters vote for Hillary, what are we to make of those two things?"
– Sean Hannity [to invited panel][2]
"Ummmm.... that slavery leaves a mark?"
– Jon Stewart [absent from panel, responding to Hannity][3]
There's not a man I meet but doth salute me
As if I were their well-acquainted friend.– Antipholus of Syracuse, in The Comedy of Errors (Shakespeare)[4]
[edit] Some opinions I currently hold
I believe editors vary greatly in their tolerance for pedantry from other editors based largely on "gut feelings." When this gut feeling arises, and an editor still feels an edit should or should not be made, that editor may make an accusation of "wikilawyering," or "trolling," or "failure to assume good faith," accusations which all essentially amount to failures to assume good faith, but whose merit is sometimes judged by the community level of respect of the editor making the accusation. A license to ignore all rules, perhaps. A new editor would have no defense in that case.
One means some new editors may find to minimize these feelings and actually AGF is to attempt to match and exceed the level of pedantry of opposing editors. Sadly, this may then become a game of "which side will accuse the other of bad faith first." Almost anyone neutral left in the discussion by then has no idea what the remaining discussing parties are talking about, making the end result again a simple calculation of how many editors are on what side. Is that consensus?
–
Increasing an article's status (Good Article, Featured Article, etc.) increases its distribution, which is natural; people want to read and respect good articles. Recklessness is not a way to get there, thus expressing the possibility of increased status in debates about article content is to be strongly discouraged.
–
I've recently observed that some people who use and embrace the term "systemic gender bias" still seem to miss correctable examples of sexism in their own midst, or out of their mouths or tips of their fingers. Strangely, this sexism seems almost always directed against men. Why is this? Is it my warped perspective, or extremely rare experience? Something else? I don't know, and wouldn't know where in Wikipedia to look.
–
In a formal logical argument, the word "and" means the same as the word "but." Choosing which word to use in an article can be tricky as far as proper adherence to WP:NPOV, since it often involves a judgment call on the part of an editor.
–
- ^ Douglas Adams. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. “Zaphod's just this guy, you know?”
- ^ As rebroadcast on The Daily Show, March 12, 2008. Originally broadcast on FOX News.
- ^ The Daily Show, March 12, 2008
- ^ The Comedy of Errors, William Shakespeare, Act IV, Scene 3 (1594)
