User:Basvossen/sandbox

BELIEVING WIKIPEDIA was a grassroots website set up by ordinary (not university) people, I was enthused at first and started reading all articles that had my interest. I thought every article was written by a number of people, that all wanted to add things. INSTEAD, they started to change everyone else's article(s), sometimes even completely deleting their hard work. I believe it is a sort of territorial urge.

I also believed that wikipedia was a purely voluntary thing and later found that there is a club that either gets paid, or that really has nothing better to do than revise every incoming article to the point that the original content has completely disappeared.

This makes me realize that information in itself is warfare, that we can shape our planet and environment completely based on assumptions believed to be true since the majority thinks this information is correct. Luckily there are some people that travel and understand how geographical borders can change the way people behave, act and think.

Also the legal right to use information to benefit oneself has been taken away in a number of situations of which I believe patents are the worst. Inventors should be rewarded in case their idea leads mankind out of the darkness it still is in (until the end of warfare) but there should be limits in how much money a human can have. I don't think there is much difference in quality of life if you earn a monthly $5000 or a monthly $50.000 or even more. I have seen situations where people are completely unhappy with the wealth they were born in, situations were people disregard the harmony between the things they own and the environment, or don't (want to) see future possibilities for others. Sometimes (too much) money is simply destructive, and disrupts everything. Another example is the right of some people to have a part of their life hidden for a century, protected by law because they were royalty or statesmen, while a small percentage of people have access to that information.

I truly believe in the goal of Wikipedia to make information open available. But the gatekeepers of this information should let more water through, instead of only letting themselves and their articles (often pretty boring) see the light of day.

Another example I want to talk about, is the Catch-22 situation where club owners are watching wikipedia if you are in the list. For example: there used to be a list of cello rock bands, that has been deleted entirely, after which a couple of acts randomly has been swept together on the one page about this beautiful instrument. Looking at the list of contemporary blues artists, I see mainly guitar slingers that have been signed by the big blues labels. This creates an unwanted situation where only the happy few that were signed before the coming of internet get a chance, or they must be incredible guitar players. Other instruments simply don't get a serious chance. Since this is a field where I have worked in for quite a while, I can relate to it. But I can also imagine that there are plenty of other situations that will never enter Wikipedia, simply because of the 'this is not a garageband thing' rule.

I hope you understand my plead here. Basvossen (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)BasBasvossen (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)