User:NonZionist
Cheatsheet
[edit]WP:5 WP:T WP:V WP:RS WP:NPOV WP:UP
WP:NPA WP:CONSENSUS WP:FAITH WP:BOLD WP:BRD WP:IAR
WP:EDIT WP:MARKUP WP:TM/D WP:MOS WP:DEV WP:REFB WP:CITEQR T:C
Travels
[edit]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gallimaufry
[edit]Suggestions: Leading Edge namespace? |
Reading Talk:Sarah_Palin, especially the mention of [1], makes me wonder whether Wikipedia should have a sandbox or namespace where developing stories that fall short of WP:RS can be tracked -- a "Leading Edge" or "Not Ready for Primetime" area with appropriate disclaimers. Many "unbalanced" and "POV-section" tags could be removed by moving the questionable material to the second-tier namespace. |
Problems: HTML ? |
Does wikipedia editor support the "col" tag? -- E.g., <col width="20%" valign="top"> doesn't work for me |
Dialogue: | Wikipedia is based on consensus and NPOV. Consensus is achieved in one of two ways: Either we silence the opposition, or we dialogue with the opposition. I prefer the latter approach. We all have POV's. NPOV, to the extent that it is achievable, is a BALANCE of conflicting POV's. It is achieved by adding POV's not by subtracting them.
|
30 Aug 2008: Second attempt Verifiability and truth |
I'm here, first of all, to learn HOW to contribute to the wikipedia project. The editorial policy documents are daunting. However, the presence of over 2 million articles tells me that it is at least POSSIBLE to contribute.
In the first overly-polemical version of this page, I attempted to explain my orientation to this project. Now that I've read WP:UP, I will try again.
I understand that the encyclopedia as a whole aims for verifiability, based on WP:RS. But I believe that the contributors must aim for something higher, namely, truth. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that the preponderance of reliable sources promote Establishment views. But the Establishment is often grievously wrong. If we were working in the Middle Ages, our reliable sources would be telling us that the world is flat. An encyclopedia that simply parrots such sources would not be very helpful. I want wikipedia to be helpful and useful. And truth is far more useful than verifiability. If our civilization stands on a precipice, that truth needs to be told; otherwise our civilization will end up in the abyss, along with its encyclopedias. To disregard truth is to spend one's time counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Truth matters, whether we choose to admit it or not.
I hope this version is not deemed offensive, but if it is, please tell me. I want to find out, through experience, what is acceptable and what isn't. |
References: |
User Boxes
[edit]
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
User:Bogorm/SCO |
|
| |||||||||||
|
|
|
|