User:AntelopeInSearchOfTruth

General Info

Editing Capabilities & Tenets

Beliefs & Interests

About Me

What else? An Antelope in search of truth, justice, etc.

My main concern is that content from sources is not always presented in an objective way. It can be easy to misrepresent what the source material is saying if it is examined without an eye for proper Logical argument form.

I haven't had too much time to fiddle with my page. There's a dump of UserBoxes to your right and some other things below.

Breakdown of Logical Argument form

 * In logic, an argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion [] called a conclusion, based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises [].


 * Some practical synonyms for "conclusion":
 * Claim. (E.G., "You make the claim that....")
 * Point. (E.G., "My point is that.....")
 * Stance. (E.G., "Bob's stance regarding 'X' is....")
 * Similarly, if anyone says they believe something to be true, "because of this or that", that "something" is their conclusion.


 * The reasons that support a conclusion are referred to in logical terms as "premises". Some practical synonyms for "premise":
 * Grounds. (E.G., "On what grounds do you believe that?")
 * Proof. (E.G., "What proof do you have that my client was there?")
 * Justification. (E.G., "what is your justification for leaving early?")

Simply put, the conclusion is what is held to be true, and premises support that truth.

Application
To be clear, I am not saying it is the job of Wikipedians to judge the truth of a given conclusion or its premises. But if we are going to present someone's argument/belief/stance regarding a particular subject and they have supplied premises in support, then we should be present the conclusion and the premises, if we are serious about accurately depicting the argument.

We do not judge the truth but we should try to present data accurately so that readers can judge for themselves. Simply put, we show it, we don't try to interpret it.

Submitting just the conclusions of an argument, bereft the premises, often leads to a inaccurate (sometimes ridiculous) representation of that content that is not present if it were viewed at its source.

Organization Schemes
I'm also big on how articles are organized. Articles should be easy to read. Sections/sub-sections of an article should have internally consistent organization schemes.

A Couple Things that might be helpful

 * WP:NPOV - Neutral Point of View
 * WP:ASR - Avoid Self References.
 * WP:CITE - Cite Sources
 * WP:WTA - Words you might want to avoid
 * WP:V - Verify your sources.
 * WP:WIN - What Wikipedia is NOT
 * WP:WQT - Wikipedia Etiquette
 * WP:DR - How to resolve disputes; valuable information for when you're not able to make your point and people are resorting to personal attacks. ;)
 * WP:CON - Consensus
 * WP:SW - For any editor working on an article that involves a story that readers might not want ruined.
 * WP:AGF - Assume Good faith
 * WP:NPA - NO personal attacks
 * Uncyclopedia - An outlet for those overly frustrated people at government desks who insist on vandalizing. ;)
 * WP:BARN - Barnstar awards

Are You Incompetent?!? Who Knows?
The Universe is not without irony! Research has apparently indicated that incompetent people are faced with a perpetuating cycle; the very skills necessary to recognize competence are absent in those who are incompetent. They lack the ability to recognize competence in others AND incompetence in themselves. []

Scary thought, really. The researchers themselves stated the realization that they would probably not be able to tell if they were incompetent in a particular area, given the findings of their study. In any case, it's good justification for continuing to question thyself. ;)