I want to start gathering together a dynamic list of Wikipedian and maybe some Citizendian articles of faith — not always as they literally espouse them, of course : that would be pointless, and being pointless is a thing that Wikipedia cannot be bested at — but as they actually enact them.

I keep losing track of that original Wikipedia Ideology thread, and the last time I looked it up it did appear to wander off the topic a bit, so I will try to maintain these first few postings as dynamically revised anchors for analysis and discussion.

Anchors Aweigh !!!

Jonny

Ironic Verses

In beginning the compilation, I see that it will be useful to include many rubrics of belief or tenets of faith approximately as they are espoused in the liturgy, even though it will be obvious to anyone who is discerning enough to draw a line between preaching and practice that these precepts are honored more in the breach than in the observance.

For now I will call these Ironic Verses, for example:

It's the message, not the messenger.

This is one of the biggest jokes in the whole litany of lies that we know as the Wikipedia "culture". The truth of the matter is that a person's Group Identity is the main determinant of his or her trajectory through the Wikipedia system. There are three and only three options from which to choose:

• Sycophant. Identify with the interests of the Elite Cabal, and you can do no wrong, no matter what else you do. You can impose you own POV on any article you wish and all who oppose you will be crushed. Remove the mirrors from your home and equip yourself with a ready supply of barf-bags.
• Nowhere Person. Try to be invisible. Learn Who's Who in the Elite Cabal and who are their Toadies and move as far away as possible from any article or policy that any of these happen to take an interest in. Learn to abandon all self-respect.
• Independent. If you criticize any position of the Elite Cabal or their Suckups, whether a matter of article content or a point of policy, your days in Wikipedia are numbered — and it's not a very big number, either.

Infantile Fantasies

Another type of Categorically Ridiculous Imperative (CRI) that we find making up this made up Ideology is best described as an Infantile Fantasy (IF). The following is perhaps the precipitating seed of all the rest:

If we ban you, you cease to exist.

This appears to be one of the main reasons — well, not so much a reason as a cause — why the bands in question believe that they have solved a problem by banning the messengers thereof. This bears of course an ironic relationship to the Ironic Verse noted above.

On a related note, just one of many variations on a theme, we have the following Idiot's Fantasia:

Wikipedia does not answer to the Public —
The Public answers to Wikipedia.

Trying to humor the Arbnormal Psychology of these lunatics may seem like the safest course at first, but playing along with their fantastic delusion that any member of sane adult society should have to answer to the inmates of that Inner Sanitorium known as Arb Com does nothing to help these infantile inmates improve their mental health, much less lead them back into a modicum of touch with reality.

For their own good, do not wikiplay along, nicely or otherwise.

Jonny

If we ban you, you cease to exist.

Wikipedia does not answer to the Public —
The Public answers to Wikipedia.




Wikipedia is open.

Wikipedia is egalitarian.

Wikipedia is transparent.

Wikipedia is unbiased.

Wikipedia is uncensored.

Wikipedia is verifiable.

Wikipedia is well-sourced.

It's the message, not the messenger.

1. It's not about information —
   It's about control.
   
   
2. Honesty is punished —
   Dishonesty is rewarded.
   
   
3. In order for the Bad Cops to get their way,
   It suffices merely that the Good Cops stay
   Absolute, Complete, Total, & Utter Weenies.
   

If we abuse you badly enough and long enough, you will eventually do something that will give us an excuse for having done so.

A trumped-up excuse is better than none.

If you criticize us, we'll libel you on your own user pages and block you from correcting the record. It's a special Feature of Wikipedia that we call Biographies Of Livid Persons (BOLP) and we've arranged to have it get top billing on Google.

Wikipedese To English Dictionary

Wikipedia is transparent.

• WP:IKLETE — I Know! Let's Erase The Evidence!

Wikipedia is anonymous.

• WP:TSAR — Totally Shirk All Responsibility.

Wikipedia never attacks anybody, you hairy-ass troll !!!

• WP:HAIRY — Harass : to question publicly the behavior of those in authority by reference to facts that are inconvenient.

It's the message, not the messiah.



2 + 2 ain't 4 unless you can find a 2ndary source that says so.

Nota Bene. The pages above this point are being updated in a dynamic fashion.

Jonny Cache, Inventor Of The Wiki ...

Now You Know Who To Blame ...

Jonny

Hey, Dodger Blue!

I don't mean to be Devil's Advocate here, but that's something of a strawman argument, isn't it? None of the stuff you wrote for WP, and were accused of violating WP:NOR for having written, was even remotely simplistic or obvious, as far as I could tell...?

I agree that they should make some allowance for common expert knowledge, and for some degree of "original research" - especially if the author is willing to put his/her name on it, but the real question is what's the cutoff point between something that has to be "attributed" and something that doesn't. They'll probably never reach agreement on it for the entire range of topics - it's just one of the many, many reasons why they should break WP up into smaller topic-oriented wikis.

I'm glad you asked that question — it's just the timing that's inopportune, as I have to be travelling — yes, you guessed it, the midnight train to Brussels and that business about the sprouts.

But I'll be bak ...

Jonny Katze

FYSMI (Funny You Should Mention It), but I just heard it on the Grapevine that the Devil's Advocate is stepping down — really, how much lower can you go, so maybe that should be stepping up? — anyway, there may be indeed be an opening for you at the top, er, bottom.

Back, but only for a flash — it's so late that it's early already, I'm way too train-lagged to think strait rite now, and I have another jaunt through the Blecchhh Forest tomorrow, but I did want to pass along that tantalizing bit of a job lead for you.

Jonny Katze

I have a little time now, not enough to tackle the whole issue of encyclopedic content versus original research, but maybe enough to begin.

Just by way of cutting to the chase, let us begin at the bottom.

The bottom line is this —

Premiss. The majority of the editors working on standard encyclopedic subjects at Wikipedia are simply not qualified to be writing encyclopedia articles on those subjects.

Corollary. In particular, the majority of the editors working on standard encyclopedic subjects at Wikipedia are simply not qualified to determine the difference between original research and sourced research in regard to those subjects.

In the long and the short of it, it's no more complicated than that.

Jonny

Somey, I'm not sure what you are saying here. I don't see the strawperson. And surely you don't believe that the line between sourced research and original research coincides with the line between obvious and non-obvious, or the line between simplistic and non-simplistic?

Try to remember the real encyclopedias that you had as a kid. Accidents of history and travel led my parents to buy Britannicas in a day before there was an American edition — it was an early lesson in the cultural relativity of notability, since a figure like George Washington hardly rated the same number of column inches as the most minor of English earls — so they later bought Compton's, an early innovator in "high-tech" visuals such as layered transparencies. At any rate, those old Britannicas contained tons and tons of material that I would hardly call obvious or simplistic even today. As a rule, I do not think that people consult works of reference to find out things they already know.

With one lately arising exception, of course ...

It is apparently one of Wikipedia's great innovations that its readers systematically delete any material that they don't already know. I don't know about you, but that seems like a great leap backward to me, at least, in so far as that oh so glorious "Sum Of Human Knowledge" thing goes.

Jonny

At least it's not as bad as Wictionary where most editors don't understand the definition of "definition".

Shhh ... don't tell anybody ... they'll be speedo-promoting them to ArbCom.

Jonny

Here's another Golden Oldie that may contribute a few morsels of fodder to the project on «Misconceptions About Wikipedia» (MAW).

Jon Awbrey

Pass the

Jon

Wikipedia is about collaboration, sharing, cooperation or working together.