User:Elaragirl/wpphil

{| align="center" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="10" style="background: none;"
 * style="background: lightcoral; border:2px solid red; -moz-border-radius: 20px;" width="8%" rowspan="2"|[[Image:Nuvola apps ksig.png|60px|center|Wikiphilosophy]]
 * style="color: lightcoral; -moz-border-radius-topright: 20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 20px;" width="700px" align="left" bgcolor="red" | Wiki Philosophy 
 * align="left" style="background: lightcoral; border:2px solid red; font-size: 85%; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 20px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 20px;"|
 * align="left" style="background: lightcoral; border:2px solid red; font-size: 85%; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 20px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 20px;"|

A word of warning
I guarantee this page will piss you completely the fuck off if you're one of the many Wikipedians with a pretentious little block of wikiphilosophy that says how civil you are and devoted to NPA and all this other shit. Some of my closest friends do this, and some people I respect very highly, but I don't know why they bother.

This page is my actual philosophy, not what I'm going to present to the world and pretend to adhere to. If it pisses you off, too bad. It's the truth.

Civility
The most common problem with WP that is cited by people who are dedicated to WP is civility. Everyone seems to think this place should be a happy go lucky hippie commune, with peace, love, and happiness. Get fucking lucid. So, let's get my opinions on the record.

NPA
The idea behind NPA is good. No need to call you a dickless jackass with delusions of intellect. That's uncalled for, and it's never going to be allowed.

However, there are some people who consider anything a personal attack, basically, and use it to game the system. If I say you're acting in an immature manner when you are, it's not a personal attack. A personal attack is asking if your mother had any non-retarded children. A personal attack is not pointing out the truth, unless you can't handle the truth.

NPA should be used with intellect and restraint. I've been called a bitch so many times by now I do not see it as a personal attack. Instead, I say "You say that like it's a bad thing". Personal attacks only matter if you let them matter.

Being Polite
There's nothing wrong with being polite. But if you aren't polite to me, don't get offended and claim I'm not being civil when I'm not polite to you. I can't stand a fucking hypocrite.

Respect
Respect must be earned. Period. I don't respect admins due the fact they are admins, any fucking idjit can be one with about 6 months of halfassed effort. The fact that some people fail at it is either due to the fact that they aren't even capable of mounting such a halfassed effort not to be a total jackass or they don't want to be one in the first place.

Respect doesn't come from your edit count either. I don't give a flying fuck how many articles you've started, or edited, or how many FA's you have. If you bring me a for-shit contribution, or make a stupid statement, I'm going to call you on it.

Respect has nothing to do with civility, really, but some less-than-optimal intellects seem to conflate the two. "You aren't treating me with respect!" You don't get respect automatically. Grow the fuck up.

Civility for the sake of Civility
Civility for the sake of civility is total bullshit.

By that, I mean that I should be civil because I want a pleasant environment, and because I am a pleasant person, not because I fear being banned, blocked, or harassed if I'm uncivil. The more you refer to shit like NPA and WP:CIVIL instead of answering my statements, the less I'm going to listen to you. I already don't give a fuck, so when I stop listening to you altogether, you lose the ability to work with me.

I have no time to cater to your expectations, I can almost assure you my life is more fucked up than yours is or ever will be. Spare me the fucking and ducking, deal with the issue, and if I'm brusque about it get the fuck over it, because if you're short with me I won't even fucking care.

Neutrality of POV
I don't believe in this at all. It's contrived, it's functionally impossible for people who know enough about the subject at hand to comment on it without having a bias of SOME kind, and it's fucking pretentious. Some of the most POV issues have been the subject of raging controversy for fucking centuries, and you're going to tell me a collection of teenagers, bored academics, bitter middle aged housewives, and power-tripping lunatics are going to find a perfect solution to find middle ground?

Give me a fucking break.

Therefore, I don't edit controversial articles, and I don't take a position. If I can't handle the subject in a completely factual matter, I don't fucking touch it. I'd like to edit Messanic Judaism, but it's a POV subject. I'd loooooove to edit the PRC article and point out the murderous fuckery of these insane baby-raping lunatics, but I'm obviously biased, so the only thing I've edited related to china is articles about weapons and art.

The people who claim they follow NPOV are either

1) Not very familar with the subjects, which means we're getting less than complete information 2) Lying and inserting POV 3) Unconciously investing the article with POV or inaccuracy.

Some things aren't POV. Evolution is not a POV issue. It's a fucking fact.

Neutrality of Position
I'm totally neutral on taking a position in WP. By that, if user A and user B are going after each other and I don't know them, I'm going to act in a neutral manner. That I can do.

If it's user C and user D, when user D is my friend, then I will get involved, but my loyalty will be to my friend first and Wikipedia second. I want that up front.

If it's user E and user W, both of who are my friends and I care about, I'm going to find some innocent bystander and vent my spleen on them and get them to intercede.

Assumption of Good Faith
Elara's Law: The first person who brings up WP:AGF in an argument is usually the one who is failing to assume good faith.

It never fails, baby. Instead of AGF, I follow API: Assume the Presumption of Innocence, which is as follows.

''Assume the person is not acting in an actively evil, disingenuous, hostile, or adversarial manner on purpose. Don't assume the person is acting in the best interests of WP, but do assume they aren't ACTIVELY trying to hurt WP.''

The problem with AGF is that good faith is an absolute. Good faith? Fuck. It's bullshit. How do I AGF with people like Cool Cat, who filed a spurious RfC on me just because I called him out on the fact he was making shit up and being a dick? Or with badgerpatrol, who seems to have no problem with anons bashing admins he disagrees with but doesn't think it's fair to say the anon is being a dick.

No, fuck AGF. It's designed as a first-strike weapon to gain some bullshit moral high ground, and score infantile points with the idea that everyone is both rational and dispassionate, and that isn't the case. I will assume the person isn't actively out to fuck me, at least until I see otherwise, but I won't assume good faith until I see some evidence of it.

Don't Give A Fuck
Make sure you read WP:DGAF.

I don't give a fuck. WP isn't real life, and it isn't that important. I don't care about wikidrama. When I get fed up, I'm going to quietly blank my pages and leave without a fanfare of trumpets like most people do. I won't "wikibreak indefinately" or "retire". I'll just go.

I'm not going to let shit in Wikipedia World fuck up my real life. My real life is fucked up enough, thank you very much.

I don't give a shit if your particular issue is of vital importance to you. Go shove it completely up your ass. I'm here to relax, and edit some things, and read interesting articles, and write an encyclopedia IN MY SPARE TIME, and as a LEISURE ACTIVITY. Wikipedia is not a goddamned company, and until I get paid to do this, I could give a shit.


 * }