Elonka&JayJG v ChrisO Options

One person does not make truth.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw

also consider:

"But most men in any age are unimpressed by new ideas. Many actually distrust them. In time, compelling thoughts may be translated into action; then they may acquire tremendous force." -- William Manchester

and finally:

"Nothing is more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this luke-warmness arising partly from ... the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience in it." - Niccolo Machiavelli

One person does not make truth.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw

also consider:

"But most men in any age are unimpressed by new ideas. Many actually distrust them. In time, compelling thoughts may be translated into action; then they may acquire tremendous force." -- William Manchester

and finally:

"Nothing is more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this luke-warmness arising partly from ... the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience in it." - Niccolo Machiavelli

And none of them made a decent encyclopedia that was based on massive amounts of users coming together and working to achieve the same end.

And none of them made a decent encyclopedia that was based on massive amounts of users coming together and working to achieve the same end.

Nor has Wikipedia, for normal definitions of "decent" and "encyclopedia". Of course none of Shaw, Winchester, nor Machievelli had that foolish goal.

Nor has Wikipedia, for normal definitions of "decent" and "encyclopedia".

Per you.

Not per consensus.

See, thats where we get to the minority voice bitching and whining, trying to override the group, whereas the group is quite capable of working together and creating something good. Thus, that whiny minority voice probably is something worth ignoring completely, as most people tend to do with the ideas that you seem to expound throughout here gomi.

See, thats where we get to the minority voice bitching and whining, trying to override the group, whereas the group is quite capable of working together...

And let me guess: The "minority voice" is generally left-leaning, non-Christian, and mostly of non-European heritage?

See, thats where we get to the minority voice bitching and whining, trying to override the group, whereas the group is quite capable of working together...

And let me guess: The "minority voice" is generally left-leaning, non-Christian, and mostly of non-European heritage?

No.

Its ChrisO.

There was a topic, remember?

There was a topic, remember?

I suppose there may have been one originally...

However, if you think you're going to convince anybody who's in their right mind that a self-selecting subgroup of Wikipediots working on a controversial topic is representative of the public at large, either ideologically or demographically, then you're not only on the wrong website, you're on the wrong planet. I'll admit that they might manage it on occasion, but only by pure, random chance.

"Consensus" is just another word for No One Left to Ban...

There was a topic, remember?

I suppose there may have been one originally...

However, if you think you're going to convince anybody who's in their right mind that a self-selecting subgroup of Wikipediots working on a controversial topic is representative of the public at large, either ideologically or demographically, then you're not only on the wrong website, you're on the wrong planet. I'll admit that they might manage it on occasion, but only by pure, random chance.

"Consensus" is just another word for No One Left to Ban...

Are you done playing your games and deleting my responses?

There was a topic, remember?

I suppose there may have been one originally...

However, if you think you're going to convince anybody who's in their right mind that a self-selecting subgroup of Wikipediots working on a controversial topic is representative of the public at large, either ideologically or demographically, then you're not only on the wrong website, you're on the wrong planet. I'll admit that they might manage it on occasion, but only by pure, random chance.

"Consensus" is just another word for No One Left to Ban...

Indeed. The notion that the opinions of a few self-selected and self-important wikipediots represents "consensus" is just as ridiculous as the notion that the opinions of a few self-selected and self-important newspaper editors represents "the voice of the people".

"Vox populi, vox humbug!"

It's been shown time and time again that sources and their usage can be manipulated to serve a particular agenda, and not only in terms of promoting them or questioning their "reliability," but also by generating them directly.

Several sources are actually produced to be used on Wikipedia and I have several exemple of that. And Wikipedia structure support sources to be used like one would want. Like I wrote previously the citation/reference system is unencyclopedic and is not used by any major encyclopedia.

ChrisO whatever or not has a PhD does not change the fact that he too is fooled by requiring citations and claiming it ''apears to be true history''(my word) for some articles when there is some bibliography already.

Encyclopedia's cover the overal subject, they are not supposed to be thesis, references/citations might be used few time but more than that and you wonder if the subject you are covering is really encyclopedic. It would usually take several notable work to cover the overal subject, when using the bibliographical system it would dismiss any non credible publication when the overal of the subject in a questionable work would contradict sharply with all notable publications about the subject.

This post has been edited by Xidaf: Fri 7th November 2008, 9:58pm

However, if you think you're going to convince anybody who's in their right mind that a self-selecting subgroup of Wikipediots working on a controversial topic is representative of the public at large, either ideologically or demographically, then you're not only on the wrong website, you're on the wrong planet. I'll admit that they might manage it on occasion, but only by pure, random chance.

As I stated before, and had it deleted three times, consensus is not about representing all views or everyone in the public. Its about people working together to come to a mutual agreement. You either participate in the consensus building process, or you don't. If you don't, then you really have no right to complain that the consensus determined something that you don't like.

Its a community. All communities form community ideas and constructs. If you don't like it, build your own encyclopedia and determine how it is structured yourself. This one is built through consensus.

Ottava, with your idea of how things should be decided, evolution is not existing in the US and the world is created in 6 days, if we would let the majority rule. Unfortunately, the majority mob rule is not the same as the truth, and this is exactly why wikipedia is failing.

Ottava, with your idea of how things should be decided, evolution is not existing in the US and the world is created in 6 days, if we would let the majority rule. Unfortunately, the majority mob rule is not the same as the truth, and this is exactly why wikipedia is failing.

EuroSceptic, do you really think consensus on Wikipedia points to such a conclusion? You can throw out such things, but it does not match what Wikipedia has.






Because the moderators thought it would be funny to put this up:

"Flood control is enabled on this board, please wait 3600 seconds before replying or posting a new topic"

I have placed my response here.

The fact that Somey tries to make it seem that consensus building process, which welcomes all, is some how equal to mass murder is absolutely outrageous and only proves that he hasn't a clue what he is actually talking about.

"
Why do you even defend them, Ottava? You've been blocked on Wikipedia all sorts of times. They obviously don't like you or your "ideas" any more than most of us do, which is not at all."

Yes, because my "ideas" were the reason why I was blocked. Oh wait, my editing skill was the reason why so many people kept coming to my defense when I would be blocked for REVERT WARRING, especially on certain pages like NLT when admin try to change it against consensus.

Funny how that happens.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Sat 8th November 2008, 4:40am

As I stated before, and had it deleted three times, consensus is not about representing all views or everyone in the public. Its about people working together to come to a mutual agreement. You either participate in the consensus building process, or you don't. If you don't, then you really have no right to complain that the consensus determined something that you don't like.

You coudn't possibly get more illogical if you... shit, I don't think you could possibly get more illogical under any circumstances.

You literally might as well say, "If you didn't participate in the plan to commit mass murder on a global scale, then you have no right to complain when the mass murder is committed."

Its a community. All communities form community ideas and constructs. If you don't like it, build your own encyclopedia and determine how it is structured yourself. This one is built through consensus.

This one is built through agenda pushing, unaccountable revenge-grabbing, uncontrolled gamesmanship, lying, intimidation, and above all, stupidity.

Why do you even defend them, Ottava? You've been blocked on Wikipedia all sorts of times. They obviously don't like you or your "ideas" any more than most of us do, which is not at all.

I'll admit, though, you're just about the most successful and talented right-wing "troll" I've ever encountered, and that's saying something! It leads me to think that you're not really right-wing at all, but rather a left-winger who just wants to make right-wingers look bad by acting out all the aspects of the worst-nightmare wingnut stereotype. Except that you should have stopped by now - Obama won the election, remember? You can celebrate now! Go do something useful with your life!

I'll admit, though, you're just about the most successful and talented right-wing "troll" I've ever encountered, and that's saying something! It leads me to think that you're not really right-wing at all, but rather a left-winger who just wants to make right-wingers look bad by acting out all the aspects of the worst-nightmare wingnut stereotype. Except that you should have stopped by now - Obama won the election, remember? You can celebrate now! Go do something useful with your life!

Yes. Ottava is much like Stephen T. Colbert, except he's not funny.

Because the moderators thought it would be funny to put this up:

"Flood control is enabled on this board, please wait 3600 seconds before replying or posting a new topic"

I have placed my response here.

Well, I laughed... So hard, in fact, that I just changed your 24-hour edit-time limit to 5 minutes! My goodness, I'm just laughing hysterically at this point.

The fact that Somey tries to make it seem that consensus building process, which welcomes all, is some how equal to mass murder is absolutely outrageous and only proves that he hasn't a clue what he is actually talking about.

"Welcomes all"? Um, no, but you're right about the other thing - in many ways, it's worse than mass murder. Mass murder only kills people, who would eventually die anyway. Moreover, they can rise up, defend themselves, fight back. What you apparently want to kill is the very basis of truth itself, and truth is a very fragile thing in the face of people like yourself who are determined to destroy it.

Assuming you aren't faking this whole thing, of course...

Yes, because my "ideas" were the reason why I was blocked.

OK, I'm now 100 percent convinced that you're faking this whole thing.

Funny how that happens.

Hardy har-har.

As I stated before, and had it deleted three times, consensus is not about representing all views or everyone in the public. It's about people working together to come to a mutual agreement. You either participate in the consensus building process, or you don't. If you don't, then you really have no right to complain that the consensus determined something that you don't like.

Its a community. All communities form community ideas and constructs.

The irony here is at once palpable. laughable, and heartbreaking.

I've lost track of how many times I've promoted the notion of mutually agreeable terms of engagement as a sane and sensible alternative to mutually disagreeable terms of (dis)engagement.

For reasons unbeknownst to me, the concept is not a popular one in the Wikisphere.

But more to the point, the ineluctable outcome in the absence of mutually agreeable terms of engagement is some form of liminal social drama.

In this case it rapidly devolves to lunatic social drama, along the lines of post-modern theater of the absurd.

"Welcomes all"? Um, no, but you're right about the other thing - in many ways, it's worse than mass murder. Mass murder only kills people, who would eventually die anyway. Moreover, they can rise up, defend themselves, fight back.

Killed people rising up and fighting back? Is this like Dawn of the Dead?

Killed people rising up and fighting back? Is this like Dawn of the Dead?

More like Brazil.