User:Frinkus
Moohey! Greatings Fellow Earthlings!
| Wikipedia:Babel | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||
| Search user languages |
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
— Non-professor Frinkus → Not a professor, just a scientist, researcher, inventor, developer. Is currently studying several languages (due to multilingual nature of home country; see if you can guess which one ;-) ).
Feigns the professional/amateur moniker, since professionals may show bias, amateurs may lack quality control; but sometimes the opposite for both categories is true.
Just to understand a bit about myself, I will often comment on things that are not representative of my beliefs at all … I merely encourage debate in areas of possible misbalance. Since the cost of knowledge, advancement and freedom is eternal vigilance.
Moto for the Czech Republic [Česká republika] → "Truth prevails" [Pravda vítězí]
Some important Wikipedia points all should follow
[edit]I found this list on a talk page by another user, and this is just so accurate. I have done edit work in the past, only to be stung by others who avoid proper channels to handle edit discussions. Please read, and more importantly, follow (this is for everyone):
- If you're fixing vandalism, 3RR does not count. Otherwise it does.
- Do not revert edits because they are in bad faith unless it's obvious that they are (i.e. in general, don't).
- Do not discuss through edit summaries. That's not what they are for.
Peace be with you all.
Quotes from other Wikipedians
[edit]| “ | One should never be overly attached to a hypothesis, just becuase it is one's own. | ” |
[Reference needed, must ask user's permission first]
Working towards a definition of “non Point-of-View”
[edit]Negationism … the other side of the POV extreme
[edit]Elimination of weasel text from articles are extremely important to establish an NPOV standard. My concern, is I have seen POV in a sinister form of negationism, which is the other side of the coin, and is just as POV as weasel text. I have seen lots of text neuter the facts to the point they make it a challenge for more basic readers to walk away with a correct NPOV view of that subject. For example, someone will put in sourced data (with references) that is positive for something (like a system of belief), and use negationism to neuter any possible criticism in the article with claims of POV and weaseling when someone else's edits in a negative view point in an attempt to counter balance the positive view point already there. Should not all articles be neutral?
Methods of avoiding both individual and group bias
[edit]Believe it or not, science can today give a clearer definition of what is “good”, and what is “evil” based on non-discriminatory facts and testable theories. It is called evolutionary ethics … and is an expanding field. The more people refrain from personal, ethical and religious biases, and write in a more clinical scientific mannerism, such as speaking about controversial things with proper reference to evolutionary ethics; one can avoid some ‘point-of-view’ problems.
POV forking … another sinister form of POV
[edit]Don’t like something, but you do not want to delete it since you are bias and cannot academically defend such a removal with Wikipedia standard? Why not move it from the main article in question into a sub-article to be hidden away from a possibly a good number of novice readers?
Make no mistake; that is like undue under-weighting of facts. I have noticed valid items; like valid criticisms of analysis can be hidden away in an article about criticisms, when they should at least be summarized on the main article with a link to more detail should a reader wish to learn more. Just a link with no data at all … is tantamount to POV forking.
Quest for Accuracy
[edit]Knowing precise reality is not possible; there are infinite pieces of information. However, it does not mean we cannot strive to get close. Encyclopædic mission should be to present the best known facts in summary fashion, including strengths and weakness, to leave the reader with an impression that points as close to true reality as possible.
I am a strong believer in quality control, but I concentrate on what I work with best, and that is trying to ensure all facets of reality are presented. There is this side, that side, and the truth. I find that many important subjects, the scale easily tips to one direction due to popular reality (is perception reality?). For example, many people might have strong faith or ideology in a subject, and tilt the discussion that way without knowing it themselves. I get involved in areas where I feel people take stuff for granted and may have over looked objectivity. In the end, asking important questions, lead to important answers, and only by constantly justifying our actions, can we be sure to be doing the best ones.