User:Ryet0

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ryet0.

In the scramble to get that last term project done for Core Humanities, you rummage through web pages to use as sources. You start with Google, randomly typing in titles and names, praying that the search engine gods will answer your prayers. They then spoliate your request, giving you useless garbage that drains more knowledge than it contributes. You continue to search frantically, as sweat builds on your brow. Then it hits you. WIKIPEDIA. Once again, God’s gift to humankind saves the day.

In class after class, professor after professor defile the website Wikipedia.org. With every mention of the program, eyes roll and any point that would come from the conversation is immediately negated. “Just because it’s on Wikipedia doesn’t mean it’s right.” “It’s not a valid source.” “Do you know who wrote the article?” Anyone can write for Wikipedia. You can use a username or you can be anonymous. You can write the truth or complete fiction. Writing an article is as easy as writing a paper. You can write on anything or anyone, any concept and any ideal. Some users overlook this, taking the site as just another static encyclopedia written by experts. “Experts” on Wikipedia are not always experts. Authors have written many-a-story that have absolutely no hint of truth to them, whether by sheer ignorance or by malicious intent. Defamation has become a major issue facing Wikipedia. Recent court decisions have affirmed that internet defamation can be upheld by law. Since the authors are virtually untraceable, Wikipedia must face lawsuits from victims who state that the organization needs to be held accountable. Wikipedia holds a disclaimer stating that they cannot be responsible for these issues, although there are large groups of volunteers who attempt to ensure that invalid information does not stay posted. Another troubling issue comes from the use by corporations to deface rivals and play up their products. A good portion of the content is money-driven.

That’s just it. As contradictory as it may sound, the information is correct. Looking at the big picture, information on Wikipedia, in the long run, should always be correct. Why? Because it is subject to the scientific method. Anyone can review an article, and anyone can change an article. Eventually, articles will be reviewed enough to the point where valid information gets pushed to the front for the user to use. The process of correcting information begins with volunteer administrators deleting posts that have no practical use in an encyclopedia. Articles contributing to the encyclopedic knowledge base that have issues are flagged by users and administrators. Posts can be flagged for any number of reasons, but most commonly for questionable neutrality (see business/religion), lack of valid references, and any other disputed information. Wikipedia provides a discussion board where users can critique the article and possibly demonstrate how valid data should be presented. Eventually, through effective communication and shared knowledge, a solution comes together and the world once again reaches equilibrium.

To demonstrate the effectiveness of Wikipedia, I posted an article about a bogus secret society called ‘Rooster’. (It was the brain-child of a high-school friend that never materialized.) The article read:

Rooster is a secret society founded by Walter Jelinsky. The exact dates of founding are unknown, but the best known estimate is 2003-2005. The organization is based in Southern Nevada. The primary purpose of the organization is networking among the members and associated higher-ups in the community. Groups of radicals associated with Rooster have been known to take vigilante action. The group has strong Democratic affiliations and is extremely anti-conservative.

I have added to legitimate articles many times, but had never attempted to publish false information. After a few hours, I was confident that I had made my mark on the world, and disappointed by Wikipedia’s response. By the next morning, though, I was pleased to see that my article had been deleted. To further carry out my little experiment, I decided to dispute the deletion by contacting the administrator that deleted my post:

Hi there, I submitted article earlier today (March 23rd) on an organization called 'Rooster society' or just 'Rooster'. The little bit I had the opportunity to throw together was understandably deleted. I can see how it appears fictitious. It is a legitimate organization of college students. As a small organization in a local area, which has only been in existence for a few years, there are no verifiable references. Meetings are often held at parks/strip clubs accompanied by a few cases of beer. We have members at Fordham University, University of Nevada, Reno, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada State University, Wyoming, and BYU. A number of us are entrepreneurs, and this helps us relay ideas and network. We also help with political events that support respectable candidates. How should I go about creating an article that will not get deleted? Thank You -Ryan Walters (spokesman)

I received a prompt reply that demonstrated the commitment that Wikipedia has to providing pertinent and useful information to the world:

Hi, your organization sounds like a hell of a lot of fun. Unfortunately, it's also exactly the sort of organization that Wikipedia prohibits mention of. Articles on organizations have to meet a threshold notability, their coverage also requires information backed up by reliable sources. I deleted your article because of WP:CSD#A7, and I don't think that there is any potential rewrite that would avoid the same caveat. This is in no way a criticism of the organization itself, this is a simple enforcement of Wikipedia policy. You would probably have better luck in creating something like a MySpace account for the Rooster Society, and it would probably prove more useful than an article on Wikipedia. Cheers

“WP:CSD#A7” states that articles on ‘unremarkable’ and unverifiable groups are not relevant to the knowledge base that Wikipedia provides to the public. The response was well done, providing information on the purpose of the deletion as well as recommendations as to how an organization such as 'Rooster' should go about getting on the web. It is important to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should be treated as such. The publication of false information detracts from the concept that is Wikipedia.

It works because its base is the world’s knowledge. The synergy that comes about through the simple concept of sharing knowledge has become a driving force for the world. Companies such as Answers.com and Yahoo! Answers rely heavily on the open-source information available on Wikipedia. Employees everywhere use open source information to solve problems. The open source movement is not coming, it’s here. The concept of knowledge driving knowledge will sculpt the world into a better tomorrow. So if ever you come across an error on Wikipedia, do not get angry, or take the false presumption that the usefulness of such an idea is limited. Instead, fix it, and strengthen humankind.

NOLA This user is from New Orleans. This user is an undergraduate student majoring in Information Systems. This user is a fencer.

This user is a Beer Pong Champion vb.net This user is a Visual Basic .NET programmer. sql This user uses SQL queries to locate car keys.

This user enjoys jazz music. xml This user can write XML. W3C This user believes in compliance with W3C standards.

This user plays ultimate. This user plays 9-ball. This user drinks GUINNESS.