User:Baroque1700

I was an energetic yet anonymous contributor with a previously different, but Baroque, screen name, with a generally focused attention to Italian and Spanish artists prior to the 19th century. My goal has been to compile a generally encyclopedic set of entries starting from available edited biogaphies derived from the copyright-free era. Lately my source has been on Michael Bryan's dictionary.

I have moved to a more reluctant contributor for a number of reasons.

I echo some of User:Bill Thayer's criticisms of Wikipedia.

Under present system, the expansion of an empire of knowledge means many entries will not be protected against vandalism
I find that while the protection against vandalism for entries of "high value" targets is quickly reverted; if the encyclopedia is expanded to millions of more low-value entries (targets), then, who is to protect them? That is, to use a WashingtonDC metaphor, graffiti on a "Capitol building" is usually nil, while the wall of a row-house on a cul-de-sac is often defaced with paint, and there is little remedy, unless the owner himself reverts it. As the number of entries expand, the targets of vandalism expand. This expansion causes thriving wikieditors to become anoxic security guards, unconcerned with adding content but merely pursuing the infantile vandals. There needs to be better protection against vandalism, even if this forces all contributers to Wikipedia to log in.

Puny wars about much ado
Second of all, some of the battles in wikipedia are baffling. One editor states that a list of churches in Rome, Florence, and Venice, have no intrinsic value greater than a list of churches in Indianapolis. I am one of those that think the argument is not worth having, and again makes contributors battle the intellectual "puny wars" (pun intended) instead of more substantial arguments. I have nothing against Indianapolis, but the churches of rome: 1) had far more architerctural reverberations 2) have far more distinct references in scholarly or academic publications 3) etc. etc.

It sometimes feels like trying to debate evolution with a flat-earth creationist; no amount of evidence, no amount of reason or consensus will convince them.

Wikipedia content endorses pederasty, and such content is protected by NPOV
Third of all, are some of the "values" insidiously promoted by the NPOV banner. Specifically with regards to Italian painters, I was horrified by the links of Michelangelo and Leonardo to pederasty. While I would admit that Leonardo da Vinci almost certainly was involved in relationships which today would be considered pederastic, this should not be construed as a reason to view them any more favorably or as justifying modern pederasty. Statements like the following are baffling:


 * "The Renaissance, inspired by the rediscovery of the philosophy and art of the ancient world, was a fertile time for such relations. Among the luminaries of the time who praised or depicted romantic liaisons with youths were Théophile de Viau, Marsilio Ficino, Benvenuto Cellini, Caravaggio, Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo.


 * Homoerotic desire was primarily conceived as an adult's desire for an adolescent, beardless youth. Consequently, pederastic aesthetics influenced art and literature throughout Europe"

A wikienthusiast would say, that if I disagree with them, then I should edit the comments away, truth will win out. That is not true however, and I should not want or have to spend my time editing what I consider offensive. The statement above would lead some to believe that "classic philosophy and art inspire pederasty". There is no proof for that statement; no reliable source for that conclusion. In addition, we have no depictions of "romantic liasons" and no "praises" by Caravaggio of such relationships. We have no first hand writings by Caravaggio. He painted naked boys, but that does not depict "romantic liasons". He was accused of being a sodomite, but that does not translate into praise of pederasty. Similarly, it is also controversial to assert that Michelangelo was involved in homosexual relationships. He never married, but there is no conclusive evidence about his orientation, nor a direct "praise of such relationships".

Finally, such site then links to Man-boy love associations.

Ultimately allowing such drivel, even if it is one of millions of entries, to be part of the encyclopedia, threatens all the content. The background of Jimmy Wales in pornographic distribution, while that is not pederasty nor is he a pederast, prompts him to protect such content too much, as though if he were to call for any censuring of material, that would lead us into a slippery slope of condemning pornography. While I am not a fan of the amount of pornographic material in Wikipedia, the promotion of pederasty goes too far. I do not know what the solution is. I do not want it to be having me enter an editorial war with the (non-NPOV) pro-pederast camp which made the above entry. Perhaps some content in Wikipedia should become accessible only at certain ages. Perhaps the content needs to adhere to some internationally accepted guidelines. For example, nearly all countries in the world define the sexual act of pederasty as illegal; should we not promote that behavior. Please understand that I find the statement quoted above to be not only non-factual (that is, the rediscovery of philosophy and art does not breed pederasty), but also non-neutral, since at a core, it promotes both illegal and immoral behavior. I do not have to justify to others why I find pederasty immoral; I only need to point out that it is illegal. Pimping pederasty is equally immoral and likely illegal.

The ideal and promise of Wikipedia is noble; I am afraid that if changes are not made, more individuals like me will recoil at the enterprise. I am starting to agree more with Bill Thayer, that Wikipedia may have to be allowed to decay, until a consensus arises for further changes, then people like me can rejoin in earnest.Baroque1700 (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

re-editBaroque1700 (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)