User:DonaNobisPacem
|
I just made my first edit in 2 years on the David Suzuki page. We'll see what happens. (Nov 16, 2008). |
|
The Catholic Cabal - bringing Catholic domination to Wikipedia
[edit]I am a member of the ultra-secret Wikipedia Catholic Cabal. Despite the fact that I have never edited a contentious page without first discussing the change and seeking input on the talk page, despite the fact that I have supported changes that I believe to be NPOV that at the same time do not uphold my POV, and despite the fact I have even disagreed with fellow Catholic editors on various issues, I am nonetheless dedicated to a covert action on Wikipedia that would seek to overthrow any secular opposition. We of the Catholic cabal (which, incidently, includes any Catholic editor who happens to communicate with another Catholic editor on Wikipedia) are secretly planning to establish Cathopedia, the Catholic encyclopedia online, so that all will succumb to our nefarious plans. We even have a secret symbol to identify ourselves. So beware! We will target your page next.....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Editor's Note, Jan 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This is a (rather old) tongue-in-cheek comment in response to removal of contributions due to my identity as a Catholic, rather than NPOV guidelines, in case you are wondering.
The Wikipedia Disillusionment
[edit]I have, in recent consideration, had a certain amount of disillusionment and skepticism over the lofty goal of many Wikipedians; to eventually become a reputable encyclopedic source that can become a free resource.
In my university experience, I have had professors specifically warn against using Wikipedia, even to check math formulas. Formulas have often been found with editorial errors, and because the articles themselves are open source, they can change from one minute to the next. And these changes are not always for the better, particularly during edit wars, when POV's can become polarized and inflexible. Crackpots consistently insert garbage into articles, and although it is often caught on "hot topic" pages, it often is left unnoticed on less monitored pages. Even on a page like abortion, how is a high school student supposed to use an article as a source (keeping in mind that the student is looking for a source because they are generally not knowledgeable about the topic) when the info alters constantly, and editors mock each other's POV's and edits? The student cannot always be expected to be knowledgeable to discern the truth in the arguments, particularly elementary or early high school aged users - how is it useful to them? Academia, by and large, still advocates printed works because of editing (a professional editing staff has looked over the article, in an attempt to work through problems in science texts, find mistakes, and insure a certain standard of writing), verifiability (you know that a text has been written by so and so, and can then look up that so and so and find potential biases), the fact the book will probably be around in a few months to verify your source - all inherent problems with Wikipedia.
Although I find it useful as a beginning source, the multitude of problems, particularly with disrespectful and crackpot or upset editors inserting "jabberwocky" (see favourite word below) have given me a healthy dose of skepticism as to Wikipedia ever achieving notoriety as a reliable source. I continue to edit becuase I enjoy the debates, and like to try and make sure Wikipedia users don't find totally one-sided arguments in articles, but I certainly have lost any lofty ideals as to the usefulness of my time spent here (at least temporarily).
I welcome comment and opinion in regards to this issue on my talk page.....
Some brief info on myself
[edit]Areas of expertise : I have a BSc in Mathematics, and have a large number of history courses beneath my belt (particularly 20th century European history, with a focus from 1918-1945). I am also completing an upper-level course on Greek/Roman technologies, giving me a broad overview of many aspects of their agriculture, mining, ceramics, metallurgy, etc. I am well versed in Roman Catholic theology and culture, and know a little bit about a great many topics (not to brag - it just means my edits show up all over, on a bunch of un-related topics).
Current infatuation(s) on Wikipedia : These days, due to limited editing, I am mainly editing here and there on the Knights Templar and its associated history page.
Works in progress: If you really feel like looking at material I am working on before I post it, please click here.
First post : 05:59, 18 October 2005 - Knights Templar talk page, to dispute whether they were the largest of the military orders.
Please note: I am a family man, meaning I am not on here all the time (although as of late, it's been too much time) - hence my edits can be sporadic, as can my viewing of messages on my talk page.
Favourite word learned on Wikipedia: Jabberwocky - as in, "That's a bunch of jabberwocky!"
My view on userboxes: (also viewable at Wikipedia Talk:Proposed policy on userboxes, minus the reference to the goldfish wannabe)
- OK, here's my support for various userboxes that show a religious/political/etc affiliations; they help identify potential sources of bias for a writer. I have put the Roman Catholic userbox on my page, both to show I can be (potentially) helpful to consult if a Catholic POV or expertise is required; but also to alert those on articles such as abortion (to which I am a regular contributor to) that I hold a Catholic POV. It gives them the opportunity to challenge what I write, and forces me to insure that any contributions I make where a Catholic POV could potentially bias my writing is firmly backed up with sound research and good sources. What's the harm in that? In my opinion, it only helps to limit POV contribution to articles.
- In terms of professional knowledge - for me to identify myself as a schooled mathematician does not mean I am somehow better than a self-taught mathematician, but it does mean I can contribute with a certain level of confidence, knowledge, and resources to back me up; this is useful for those looking for experts on a topic.
It has also helped me to identify other users of similar affiliations, so that I know of other users who might be interested in helping to start new pages based on similar interests or areas of expertise.
- As for boxes that state things like "this user thinks that George Bush is a weenie" or "Hitler is my hero" and "I am a self-identified sort-of-male, cannibalistic vegan-eater, Cathar emulator, genie worshipor, and a gold-fish wannabe" and the like - obviously there is a concern for pointless userboxes, but it has seemed to me that negative feedback from fellow Wikipedians has limited their use, and quickly identifies the user as a (potentially) non-serious and flaky contributor - and on second thougt, that's not such a bad thing either! DonaNobisPacem 20:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I am...
[edit]- a dad and husband!
- impatient as all get out (hurry up and read this, will you?)
- easily frustrated over new editors changing entire articles over, and over, and over, and over, consistently ignoring advice to take it to talk pages
I am not...
[edit]- a self-identified sort-of-male, cannibalistic vegan-eater, Cathar emulator, genie worshipor, and a gold-fish wannabe.
- an angry person - I try to be levelheaded in all debates, even contentious and emotional ones