User:Cpiral/Pilot light a flame war

/notes key ideas: general and specific, subjective and objective, neutral and reliable, ownership and consensus

Perhaps his article should be divided up into two: 1) "Pilot lighting flame wars" including the truth value of trolling, and how to apologize. 2) "the Grain of CORNERED": Consensus by Objectivity, Reliability, Notability, Neutrality in every readable, editable discussion.

Here is a pilots license to get through flame wars. Pilot lights allow the baking of raw ideas to turn on and off as necessary to allow for to the poor state of volunteerism in the world Flame wars are destructive, but nice little pilot lighting fires are encouraged. Articles are the "baked" pieces out of the ovens of discussion. Flame wars scorch the kitchen, and drive out the master chefs, preparing food for thought, and leaving the hungry performing desperate measures. When they drag on treasures go unused. Each new discussion dishes up an opportunity to evolve. They'll see, it will all make sense.

I hereby make an appeal for a new and improved articulation about a new improvement in discussing new improvements to articles. This is low level discussion because we need to get to the root of the problem.

If we could all just contain ourselves, many opportunities to serve would open up and take us in. Being there is 80% of success. --Woody Allen. Truth requires the the test of the trolls and there purifying flaming remarks, for the truth is mostly the love we all have for a calm confidence.

An inner consensus within us determines our writing output. When turbulence lies ahead, a good pilot announces over the inner intercom and remains a light, defying gravity in the light storm, tracking toward port. Confidence is an inner consensus highly rated percentage wise.

But lucidity will be paramount for me because my and your new political correctness is just "clothing for a day". What I will be looking for is the tone that goes beyond pure description, and perhaps a reference to there are no rules. Keeping in mind that Ignore all rules invalidates itself and that Wikipedia is not that important, we shall set ourselves with the peace and humor of mind necessary to creatively impress the lasting contributions we truly deep-down desire.

As far as the future of Wikipedia, and discussions concerning truth (brutal), To succeed wildly we need to know the culture (e.g. LOL, troll, and Encyclopedia Dramatica) we seek to influence.

I think MediaWiki is an ideal platform for many useful things in life. We need only the specifics that will enable a group "hand" to ouija the improved articulation. When attitudes go off the topic as stated in the subject heading of the discussion section, the "board" is off the tropical latitudes. Please stay on tropic with your latitude.

When the impossible to digest general negatives cause the territorial fur to fly into the healing ointment it directs me to that users talk pages to engage in useful discussion for a hurting human being. Wikipedia is not so important that I can't try that.

Neutrality

No policy is neutral. Rules are not neutral, and opinions on direction or inclusion are not neutral. But the way we say things can be as neutral as possible by being objective. For the most part that means not overusing markup.

Objectivity

Objectivity is the key that opens doors during discussion, if indeed we have the knowledge to define "that other side".

The ego

Abyssus abyssum invocat - "Hell" hells invoke. Now flame wars are of the ego. Wikipedia blends the good and bad of ego. The good side is the healthy, outdoor play the ego gets when sharing it's brilliance, all edited and polished, reflecting to the world that the world is, in this creation, edited and polished. The bad side manifests in the realization that editing work is required for the ego to dress itself neutrally and objectively in it's address to Wikipedians during discussions.

Reliability is the work required by the skepticism of science. It is of the same type of reward system as trolls, vandals, and They force you to learn and review the basic fundamentals, just as computer security issues force the basics of computing to be remembered by reviewing. What is submitted without reliable evidence can be dismissed without reliable evidence.

Talk pages

WP:RCO#Trolls and flamers

Issues

TIPAESA says that an authority is a widely recognized person, who stakes their reputation as a source, a walking, talking citation. Their position is stated without argument, evidence, or source. This is the case in Talk files because everyone has a say, and signatures are included. An anonymous party who provides argument/evidence/source in depth, however, has as much influence or more to sway an otherwise grounded and secured confident groupthink.

In discussion that leads to quick and efficient consensus rather than drama, ( and in general all artifactual content is based on reliance, ideally it should all be structurally reliable. Efficient action is based on specifics, because specifics are more objective, A neutral opinion reporting on an inner consensus is more reliable because of cognitive bias. The brain is its own ultimate object. When we own anything we are responsible for handling it. The wording of discussion content is made specific and reasoned in manner by editing-out the general and the personal. (The neutral tone usually takes proofreading and copy editing.)

Discussion's chief aim is to remedy skewed subjectivity by displaying objective "facts" or "policy". The target is a neutral middle. The most successful display a consistency. They offer objective facts and policy by using an objective approach. An objective approach is non-personal in nature. It says neither "I don't understand you." nor "You make no sense to me." (How do ya like that as yet another example of the truth in paradox: a non-personal persona.) This is similar to the symbiotic relation between policy reflecting consensus and consensus reflecting practice. Ya can't make policy reflect practice; i.e. ya can't make policy objective. No core policy of any body (of knowledge or person) is objective internal to itself. The following are internal-Wikipedia-users subjectivity: neutrality, verifiability, and notability. We rightly aim tools at the objective of recording consensus, and we rightly point at the recorded consensus (object) as objective. But consensus is a poor and broken thing, in constant need of repair, and more or less always hammered on by wordsmiths.

Notability is subjective. Objectivity is subjective. Reliability is subjective. Consensus is objective because it is in the category of writing called "policy" or "statute".

When Wikipedia says "WP:Experts are scum, they mean wikt:insular people distract users from editing articles, and tempt users to spend hours learning how to disprove what an expert can say in a few minutes. This is "Ignoramus wastes Wikipedia's time". The ignoramus feels emotionally compelled to learn, and that compel spells addiction. Ego is I-me-mine about ownership, territory, grasping, clinging, addiction and drama. Ego is all about talking, having a say, and learning by any means possible, including by way of the negative energies of drama. So Wikipedia pushes the drama to the fore of so many wannabes. That is a good side-effect for the individual ego, and a not-so-good effect on the improvement of Wikipedia as a whole.

When I first came, I had no idea of what cognitive bias was: blindness inflicted by a subconscious desire to achieve. It's an ego trick. The most amazing thing I have ever personally learned about myself. The description is at my talk page with Gandalf61. Here I was obviously blind in a different way, to a technical, external world fact who does what around here. Is there any significant comparison between the mechanisms in back of or meanings in front of these two blindnesses?

See Wikipedia:Tendentious editing

Satisfy the immediate, in progress achievement need. Study the past, historical benefits of engaging, and so forgive yourself. Maintain a sincerity of service. It is a disservice to require attention.

Objectivity and neutrality

I'm going to use the term colorization instead of saying "italics and bold" over and over. (needs use "emphasis" then?)

Wikipedia's aims at objectivity and neutrality in article space and on talk pages as well. It's a cultural thing that makes sense for an encyclopedia. Why talk pages? Because similar to the way a specific mentality is developed, or a particular talent is refined and strengthened for the greater good, by practicing neutrality in talk-space, where there is wider latitude and leniency than in main-space, there is fostered the general good of article page quality. This is especially true for the more impressionable and sensitive newcommers. We call it a "culture" because it grows the growing things.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a colorful, emphatic personality. It just isn't policy, or guideline, or not even the norm on talk pages. The encyclopedia is more about objects in space-time than the personal, spirited experience of being thrown through time. There are no rules because no policy or guideline is ever neutral. It has a different kind of objectivity, that of the goal that is unseen, idealic, mental.

The biggest blessing Wikipedia offers is freedom to follow the rules in order to easily reform behavioral aggression and unsightly passions. One simply edits them out before saving the page.

As a result one can watch oneself on the way to the wise who do the same act but in real-time. Ours is yet in a motion entirely untimely to count for anything more than the practice of personal morphology (at best). What is time but change?

The aesthetic effect of blocks of words, with no colorization or lists ("Do not use lists..."), and which, when neutrally stated, maximizes the space, freedom and acceptability because the reader sees objects, like a rock, and is then free to be or do what they will with it: ignore, study, throw at enemy, etc. This honors the reality we live in because it emulates it. For example, given an unambiguous phrase, readers who are not told which words to stress, stress the ones they want. If the words are pre-stressed for them, it is difficult and stressful to stress other words that might have otherwise served themselves.

No matter how strong our spirit, we cannot force ideas, but it is in the words themselves that the power to charm against all odds lies.

Policy, political speeches, and police may be emotionally spirited, and definitely not neutral, but talk pages about policy need to be neutral. One of the worst problems for Wikipedia, who wants everyone to contribute, is the stress caused by not-so-subtle remarks on talk pages. The epitome of the disease is the stressful cabal syndrome which defends policy pages in a passionate way, doing things like sockpuppetry, threats, etc, anything to derail the attention to the true objective, the actual desire to improve the policy they patrol like trolls all in a gang.

An object is an an objective in that it outlasts any mood, and, like a rock, makes for foundation, or orientation. The difficulty in being objective is choosing content and structure, in a way that is acceptable in the biggest way (more minds for longer times).

The difficulty in being neutral is presenting content and structure in a way that makes space for the reader to interpret it the way they will. It enables bias because bias will always be in the young. The purpose of colorization is to disambiguate, otherwise it is not neutral because colorization biases words. Knowledge doesn't much need colorization except as disambiguation, or as a visual aid (such as bold for scanning and italics for word or idea connection).

Policy is one-sided (it will be done this way); bold and italics are one-sided and "to be used sparingly" (telling readers how to stress the words in their inner ears). Similarly capitals are not for all-caps for emphasis. Neither policy nor colorization are neutral, which is multi-sided. To make it a guideline to liberalize colorization is to make it a recommendation to make rules, when in fact making rules provisions avenues of non-neutrality. Because neutrality is central, we say "there are no rules", because the ruling policy is non-neutral.

Lucidity is paramount because it lasts forever, while political correctness is just "clothing for a day". What I looking to correct in non-neutral rule statements is a tone that goes beyond pure description, i.e. a non-objective tone.

there are no rules.

Keeping in mind that Ignore all rules invalidates itself and that Wikipedia is not that important, the peace and humor of mind necessary to creatively impress the lasting contributions we truly deep-down desire. What lasts is what is visible longest is what is most real and great in time. Objectivity is the epitome of reality. Pride is the soil from which fruitful ideas sprout.

Everything written here is free for the taking, Know the culture (e.g. LOL, (internet)|, and Encyclopedia Dramatica) that we seek to influence amongst the admins and major editors.

MediaWiki is an ideal model for many useful things in life. It makes my writing efforts and my future writing goals part of my larger response to the general turn-off that intimidating complexity and wikilawyering are, as are there counterparts in the real world.

THere is a desire to build the territory with an open mind, it's essentially a motive compelled by a desire to publicly document the learning experience concerning the finest thing ever to bless the planet: Wikipedia. To fulfill a desire to learn how objectivity and neutrality apply to Wikipedia, (where many receive well the concepts in the first place,) Wikipedians write about it and try to practice it.

How to apologize

Do not apologize for another person's feelings. 1) They are responsible for their interpretation of events. Not "should be", but are. It should be obvious that one can become more responsible for one's own interpretive process. It is not. Partly because "they are responsible for there feelings", a sincere apology uses words referring for one's own actions, and avoids mentioning the other persons responsibility at all. I will explain below. 2)An apology is a temporary drama that attempts get the ongoing stuff going again. If a discussion entry fails, for example, to deliver it's intended payload—this occurs either because it was too general (unreliable due to cognitive bias) or because it rouses the emotion (that would derail the rationality)— there still may be an opportunity to take on a responsibility for "driving" an objective reality (explained next) that separates the two users. Sustained effort and persistence overall in an ongoing project is ultimately driven by each person's personal belief "Don't blame others." was my core argument against you in general. A simple mention of one's specific influence has an action producing effect by way of a specific, reliable ownership, whereas the general mention of another's feelings is only an invitation to drop the work and goto a jig (drama). Generalities goto drama. Specifics goto action. One in the position of making action should avoid drama for two reasons. 1) It is a breach of contract and 2) one general remark in one minute by a general can cause attention to stray for many days from the specifics the privates might otherwise work on.

Consider a failed communication transaction between two individuals. The two options are abandon or amend. To "make amends" is to apologize is to add efforts, just as a constitutional amendment adds efforts to the constitution. Apologizing for another's feelings is effort per se, but it is not an effort that attempts to right a fallen situation; it is judgment. It is saying the constitution of the context of the scenario in question is the way it is needs to be, and needs no improvement. (For proofNot apologizing is thus equivalent to the "I am with the consensus". Because the larger, data oriented and object oriented data project is abandoned in favor of "no action shall be made concerning the plaintif" it is my opinion that such a statment is a calling for seriousness, and the abandonment of fun; is lazy; and is disrespectful of the ability of the plaintif's ability to think for themselves and see what they think consensus is.) Proof of the relation is in the oft' heard phrase "I make no apology for my..." because it needs no improvement because it is consensus.

Let's say there is a disagreement between two individuals. Because it can easily be imagined how they would interpret the same objective phenomena differently, it can be concluded that disagreements are commonplace. Therefore the handling of them is a very important skill (A skill is a strength.) And because objects in the objective reality play a neutral, omnipresent, 3rd party role, they can in no sane way be blamed. (Of course they are frequently blamed. Objects should never be blamed. (The rain in a car accident is not to blame, but is only a mitigating circumstance that makes allowances for a softer sentencing. This is only an instance of "puts people first", and not an instance of "blame the rain". This only leaves "them or us" to either "abandon or amend".

The constitution of a neutral and objective environment allows either party to be make the amendment. If there is in one of them "I will push for success the failed transaction" then, instead of laying down blame, then that one of them takes upon themselves blame in order to lift a situation. Unfortunately, an intermediary, objective reality separates us, and is the situation in all transactions, and it can be destabilized. How this can happen is not necessarily known to either party. (i.e. Reality lies in neither party, but is objective.) The one of them who take responsibility for any failure begins to show signs that they understand objective reality. The human objective is the data. (The unspoken primary objective is the thing that underlies play or supports the "the abandon of flow" or a fearless "losing one's self in <activity here>") The taking of responsibility (the apology, the blame) will be a consciously aware, voluntary action for the sake of the data transfer. (Or it may be unconscious if the behavior in a future, similar situation exhibits somehow ("accidentally") "proper manners".) (In our case, you have not taken responsibility, but probably will do well in the future. If you had taken responsibility, you would not be thinking at all of the other persons mysterious (unconscious) process of "feeling".) Note that if there is to be a transaction success, after it has stalled by some mysterious human feeling factors, that it is the "bigger" person of the two who apologizes. The bigger person drive both the payload (information) and the vehicle (objective reality). To be more clear, the action they apologize for is the one that has just been discovered to have destabilizing objective reality.

An apology is not so much "given" as it is "confessed". (It is "given" if it is during a temporary lull in a war.) It is "confessed" if it is 1)an a neutral environment, and the person confessing feels safe from having the apology used against them, and 2)a result of self-scrutiny, an almost reviewing ones self and one's actions as if they themselves were mere objects. In the neutral scenario, taking blame is taking responsibility. Being big and taking responsibility then is an effort to address this aforementioned "objective reality". To the bigger person 1)It is inefficient to waste the fun parts, the valid information. For example two engineers are building a stadium and one of them announces the stadia table for the slopes, reading from the table of values, but the table was wrong. The owner of the table should apologize, get another table, and have fun building the slopes with the other engineers. 2)Objectivity is difficult to control, but an attempt is always made to do so, and there seems to be some ability to do so, as evidenced by the unshakable feeling of serendipity, etc. This makes life both fun and dangerous. 3)Other minds are impossible to control, and if there is no fear of the lack of control of another's mind, then there is no need in the pretense to having it. (The little book "The Art of War" explains this.)

3) In general, I claim one should not apologize for effects. These are natural and objective. One should apologize for causes. Apologizing for a cause implies that the act is for a good cause. Perceiving a good cause shows deep down earnest desire to help the world where one finds it. (I don't mean to imply that one stays where they encounter a need for an unplanned apology and personal work they had not intended. No they pick up the fun part, the valid data, and go on because the world is a big place, and so is Wikipedia.) It is shallow to judge effects, and deep to apologize for causes.

Besides it is doubtful there is much useful data there because it comes from the same cognition that has, then can be no doubt, a blinding bias (probably from an otherwise healthy group mentality) towards a relevant aspect of the context (the person of Cpiral) and some useful data (in such an undigestible, mismanaged and in my mis-packaged payload you hammered out so carelessly in a supposed civil discussion using reliable data in neutral manner.As for me specifically, well those feelings may or may not have been there. That is not the point. The point is that if you think that the feeling is there, then you should publicly recognize a specific cause as the root cause, and apologize with that, which is "where it is at". As it is, you have instead apologized with an implication that my imagined feeling is some kind of problem. Your judgmental attitude that the feeling is a problem is the real problem, and thus no apology should never imply that the feeling is "where the problems should be according to my judgment".

Avoiding Drama

1. In debate, make sure and look at the dates that the comments were made. (I feel safe in making this minor assertion because otherwise I would have to make a major assertion.)
2. When making a response to someone who even slightly implies that they may have been personally attacked
   1. Be more careful than usual with wording.
   2. Be more certain in counter claims or debate.
   3. If you should decide to defend yourself, keep near the nature of the topic. It's not technical.
   4. If you should decide to make an apology to the other, make it for your own actions. Do not apologize for the feelings of another person.
3. When deciding to ignore some rules, be more careful on the purpose, especially if they are etiquette.

---