• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Wikipedia: The Cult of, “Neutrality” and “Consensus”
Wikipedia has become a cult of consensus and supposed, “neutrality.” Wikipedia’slegitimacy is in serious question. This is my personal grudge against Wikipedia. It is a personaland rational analysis of the cult of Wikipedia.First, it is against the whole concept of original thoughts and ideas. I disagree with thiswhole thing against Original Research. I promote it. I encourage it. I back it with my heart, mindand soul. Wikipedia ought to allow everything and anything. Unfiltered. Uncensored. Take it tothe extreme. I believe original ideas are great because that is what gets society moving andadvancing quickly. Forget about secondary or primary, “reliable” sources that talk about your original ideas or thoughts or innovations. What is reliable to one person may not be reliable toanother. Why bother with reliability? It is subjective from the very beginning. Without originalideas, our society would be very stale indeed. There would be no incentive to do anything because everything has to be approved by the status quo. I say, who cares about the status quo?Everyone, I am sure, has, at some point in their lives, wanted to go against the consensus tranceof society. By consensus trance, I mean the self-policing of the self by restricting oneself withinthe narrow, acceptable limits of society’s doctrines. Even if those doctrines are wrong. It is abouttime we start waking up from that. We may be sheep from the time of our birth and earlyeducation (read indoctrination by the state), but surely, as we grow older, we can become wiser and open up to new, original, even insane ideas. I am sure the airplane when it was first inventedor innovated by the Wright brothers underwent a lot of criticism and scepticism, but they still didit.Secondly, Wikipedia ought to be about the pursuit of truth, and the Truth, capital T, Truthdoes not necessarily and is by no means required to conform to Wikipedia’s standards. If theTruth about, say, Barack Obama (my favourite example these days), is a liar, a fraud, a NaziZionist Fascist Socialist War Pig, then that is the truth, and should be kept. People can criticizethat fact anyway they like, but it does not change the uncomfortable truth concerning the manand his lies (watch The Obama Deception by Alex Jones).Thirdly, Wikipedia does not need Administrators, or any strict system of control, since it isconsented by the herd, whom are usually mindless robots anyways, its leaders, if they do exist,are merely a name on the computer. Nobody knows if any of the people they talk with onWikipedia are real, because it is impossible to meet every single person on Wikipedia. In fact, wecan say that Jimbo Wales acts as the invisible Big Brother who watches and observes andenforces Wikipedia’s policies. He is a figure on the screen whom most people abide by. Eventhose who try to think outside of the box of Wikipedia’s cult of personality and consensus forcethemselves to stick within the narrow limits of “criticism.” There is no free speech on Wikipedia,that is why my comments about Obama was deleted in the Talk section because one user inParticular, Wikidemon could not get his head wrapped around the notion that Wikipedia is basedon consensus of the majority. It is a tyranny of the majority.The kind of criticism when writing articles prevent the truth from spreading out, hence,“controlled conflict.” Controlled conflicts are simply another way of saying, “doublethink.” Itrequires one to acknowledge and deny the reality of REAL critics, like me, who threaten thestatus quo of Wikipedia’s many functions and principles, if it does have any of those.When everyone is part of an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia that encourages Neutral Point of View, and “balance” it is in fact organized by nobody, since when everyone is a part of something, it is no longer a part for anyone. Wikipedia’s doctrine of Neutrality is veryquestionable, since one person’s neutrality is different from someone else’s. After all, there is noreal Neutrality in the real world, even if we were to try to imagine that such a thing exists. Neutrality is a day-dream. It will never be accomplished because nobody could really ever agree
 
on it. There is always subtle differences between one person’s concept of neutrality and fairnessand someone else’s. Wikipedia, for its own sake, might as well just scrap it. It is unenforceable,yet it is enforced by its own users and administrators who spend hours reading over Wikipedia’s policies, as if it is the only thing they do and know how to do for the rest of their lives.Wikipedia, for its own sake, is not always reliable, since in order to have a, “consensus” onsomething, Wikipedia’s users have to go out to the mainstream, and only the mainstream to findout what is, “consensus” about a certain topic. If the consensus out there on the internet is thatHitler never existed, then I can bet the Wikipedians will buy that outright, and without question.If the general consensus out there in the world is that two plus two equals zero, then Wikipediawill embrace it with open arms. If the general consensus out there in the internet and elsewhere isthat what is usually science is pseudoscience, then Wikipedia will also buy it without second-thought.By and by, who are these, “administrators?” There is a vote, yes, very democratic indeed, but the problem is, who decides and who watches the, “watchers” the administrators onWikipedia? Can you honestly rely on Jimbo Wales and his cronies? Nobody has really ever metJimbo Wales except for perhaps barely one percent of its users who are a self-appointedcommittee of “arbitrators.” At the end of the day, Wikipedia is enforced by an invisible master who beats the drums of silent obedience and conformity to its many rules and regulations. Itsrules and regulations are enforced by its own users. Except, of course, people like me who pushes for the Truth on subjects like Obama’s presidency and who cares not for libellous laws,censorship, and such ridiculous notions. Wikipedia labels everything that is not generallyaccepted by the majority as, “pseudo” history, science, religion, philosophy, anything andeverything. This is very destructive as certain practises like acupuncture, an ancient Chinese artis ignored and labelled by the masses as something that is not reliable, when the opposite is true.Conspiracies are never taken seriously by the Wikipedian zombies who follow the blind instinctsof the herd that is Wikipedia’s Administration. To even suggest that something is out of placewith the current, accepted reality would result in a lot of defamation and insults, censorship, andsilencing of dissent. This is especially true with the current Obama fad. If one were to examinethe article properly, one would find that it reads more like a public relations advertisement thanan actual, real, critical assessment of Obama. Those who criticize Obama are silenced, called,“anti-Semites”, “racists” and the alike. Even though no such evidence exists to suggest thatcritics are neither anti-Semite nor racist.A tyranny of the majority in Wikipedia based on, “neutrality” is a lie. Wikipedia is neither about neutrality nor about, “knowledge.” Because if it did, it would actually allow the experts tomake the changes and updates that are necessary for, “Wikipedia” to improve. Instead, no, themasses of sheep follow the wolf blindly into their intellectual deaths, since they are self-enforcedto obey and stay within the narrow limits of understanding. Instead of having real experts publishand update its articles, particularly about science in general, it is instead updated by 15 year oldsand people who obviously lack any credentials whatsoever to understand what the term,“aromatherapy” is and its scientific merits. If something does not match the consensus trance thatis Wikipedia, its members, administrators, self-appointed bureaucrats go all out and doeverything to keep up the general consensus that knowledge is, “democratic.” No, knowledge is based on facts and original thoughts, innovations and such. Who determines the facts? Obviouslynot Wikipedia’s members and admins, but people who know what they are talking about, but youwon’t find those people on Wikipedia.Wikipedia’s “knowledge base” is for the ignorant 12 year old next to his computer whofollows the herd mentality on the web because that is all he or she knows. Wikipedia is not aboutthe spread and synthesis of knowledge, but rather, the monopolization of knowledge into the
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...