User:CasualObserver'48/Sandbox

 Previous Discussions  on this page have been moved to my Discussion Page.

If you are here, you were either invited or are likely lost and/or too inquisitive. I am currently working on the following...

Proposed: We must remember that the first pillar lede says written for the benefit of its readers; many seem to have forgotten that (except those who have noted the often poor quality of I-P articles) and we are now talking specifically about editors. While I see NPOV as the ‘prime directive’, I sadly note that we are discussing how to get there while already at the dead end of that pillar (i.e. dispute resolution). Since I am not on the hot seat, and more concerned about reader benefit and maintaining editability rather than editor sanction, I’ll make a suggestion on the general 'article' side of this workshop. I believe developing a non-locked article protection scheme/status can be of benefit. We seem to have lost the forest for the trees (that one is red?). It might also provide a way around some admin conumdrums, set some limits and bounds on editor behavior and be applicable in other disputes.

There might be a way forward with a POV fork. This might seem to be a defeat, of sorts, for true NPOV-purists, but it could also deal with NPOV gamers who regularly play with it in I-P articles. I read the ‘spirit’ of NPOV policy as being able to write a readable neutral article. The current protection scheme stops all article progress, even when there is progress on talk pages. I note and agree with PR’s complaint on NPOV here. I suggest this because I’ve somewhat been through it and this diff summarizes it reasonably well.

This proposal includes a NPOV fork within a single article, not two different articles, or say, a type of article built upon a fork. So is it a POV fork violation?. It will likely need to have a limited lifespan (and unfortunately may mean more work), include a new tag for the benefit of readers, one for editors or maybe a block of tags along with some special rules and a new article construction. I’m proposing this for new and/or edit-warred articles.

The ‘reader tag’ might say ‘This article covers a controversial subject in which NPOV-consensus has been/is difficult to develop. This article is currently under construction, and requires a prescribed format. Sorry for the inconvenience.'

A suggested format might be an ‘I-side’ views section, followed by a parallel (or closely comparable) ‘P-side’ views section (or vice versa), followed by a ‘so what is the result’ section trying to piece it all together. In a perfect world this third section might be a ctrl-C away from the stable article, with the first two sections being archived or specific new articles, in and of themselves. (I don't know squat about any programming needed to achieve this three-part configuration; it may need more tabs or even two articles (one for the first two parts and one for the third. I am a computer user, not an abuser (i.e.programmer)).

The ‘editor tag’ might say ‘If you generally agree with the first section and can contribute positively, you are invited to participate, otherwise stay away. If you generally agree with the second section and can contribute positively, you are invited to participate, otherwise stay away. If you can understand or agree with parallel points in both of the first two sections, you are invited, and indeed encouraged, to participate positively in the third section.

The rules will include ‘NPOV is required, take your best shot if you really want it in the third section’. Admins should have quick and absolute sanctions for disruption within this special format; basically, if it happens, Wiki takes it’s ball and sends them home. Guidelines might include one or two article mentor(s)/admin(s).

I see some distinct advantages in this type of scheme. With a number of editors on one (say, nationalistic) POVside, planning discussions and disputes will be public (as much as they are now and that is worrying) but somewhat POV-internal (a smaller, tighter set of 'us vs them'). It provides an opportunity to deal with many specific 'WP:whatevers' listed farther down this page within a group where the level or rhetorical violence should be lessened. With a limited timeframe, time will be spent populating the first two sections with (hopefully) less warring and rhetorical ethnic cleansing, knowing all the time that their presentation will have to pass a higher level of muster in the third section/final article. I can see the more moderate, POV-internal editors on both sides rising to the surface and flowing to the third section, and the more zealous (Israel/Palestine doesn't exist) ones sinking to individual sentences. Another advantage is that on any number of I-P subjects it takes several sentences or paragraphs to develop a cogent thought and have a subject gel. That is almost impossible for some articles now, where every other sentence starts with 'however' and they have become incomprehensible. Lastly and unusually, it provides the possibility of a look within the broader I-side and the broader P-side, where work is required to generate the final article. I note that there are very few articles of this type in Wikidepia (that I have been able to find); this is where articles, education and understanding are needed. I admit that this can be considered a POVwar peace proposal or whatever; admins and others can take that where they may. I’m thunk-out, and with the greatest respect for NPOV and reasonable editors, I release this trial baloon to see if it flies.

About three months after I started looking into Wikipedia, and about the same time I started to edit and engage in talk pages, I wondered about how my general outlook and personality compared to other editors. I had seen some ‘tests’ indicated on other user pages, so I took some, once. I am unsure what they mean or portend but I include them here because it seems an honest thing to do. They might tell you as much as they did or didn’t tell me; I tend not to be the ‘touchy-feely’ type but here they are.

Your political compass Economic Left/Right: 0.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.21 Courtesy of here. Based on the possibilities and the range of scores I have seen, I read it as very much ‘middle of the road’. I would have expected positive numbers on both measurements, but still a moderate.

According to this test What is Your World View? You scored as a Cultural Creative Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational. Fundamentalist 75% Cultural Creative 75% Materialist 63% Modernist 63% Postmodernist 56% Idealist 56% Romanticist 56% Existentialist 50%

This test is the most ‘touchy-feely’ of them all; I haven’t bothered to learn what half the descriptors mean.

The last test came as a surprise. HUMANMETRICS : Jung Typology Test (MBTI): Your Type is ENTJ Extraverted	Intuitive	Thinking	Judging Strength of the preferences % 11	25	12	44 It stands for: Extraverted iNtuitive Thinking Judging

The type is called ‘The Field Marshal’, you can read about it here. I am somewhat embarrassed at the 2% claim, because I considered myself an 'average Joe', but at my age, I see it as quite an accurate description and wished that I had taken it at twenty-something.

Future Reference
For My Info Regarding MidEast Academic Organizations, RECENT MESA, Middle_East_Studies_Association_of_North_America #criticism = “Bernard Lewis founded a rival organization, Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa, ASMEA, asserting the MESA "has been politicized to a degree without precedent. This has affected not only the basic studies of language, literature and history, but also has affected other disciplines, notably economics, politics and social science. Given the importance of these regions, there is an acute need for objective and accurate scholarship and debate, unhampered by entrenched interests and allegiances."

ASMEA, Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa, “was founded on October 24, 2007 by Professor Bernard Lewis of Princeton University and Professor Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins University. ASMEA is an academic society dedicated to promoting the highest standards of research and teaching in Middle Eastern and African studies, and related fields. It is a non-partisan, non-profit organization that seeks to achieve these goals through programs, publications, and services that support its members and the international community of scholars and concerned citizens.”

MY READ: I suspect that MESA, in their search for highest levels of education, whatever, started to step on toes of scholars with a different BIAS/Emphasis. Chances are that MESA tends to be more pro-Palestinian and even handed. With respect to the broader ME, especially in the anti-Islamic /Security-type post-9/11 issues. I suspect that ASMEA, once they organize and say some things, will end up being more neo-con/ Islamophobic/ fear-mongering/status quo, Ameri-centric and sympathetic toward Israel.

I decided to link the organizers is of ASMEA, because very few of them were, based on the already existing links in Wikipedia. It is obvious that it will more or less do what I just protected. The ASMEA and the article in Wikipedia also does not state that it is a breakaway from the previously existing am MESA. Also did decided to put the above in my sandbox adds documentation for my crystal ball.