User:Howiepedia

My 12 year old nephew told me one day that his school teacher does not allow any of her students to use Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. I also heard this from other people as well as they don’t trust Wikipedia’s information because anyone can edit and change the information. I found that disturbing because I use Wikipedia a lot because they seem to have the right information that I’m looking for. And sometimes there are hardly any other sources to choose from in those same search results, which is also disturbing since the Internet is so immense. So it seems that information is being manipulated in more then one area. Wikipedia, the world’s largest online encyclopedia, is always at the top of search results and I’m always forced to search the Internet extensively in order to get more opinions on whether that certain information is correct. Which I have always told my nephew and everyone else that they should always seek out more then one opinion when searching for answers. Now back to Wikipedia. Since I’m always trying to educate people on various subjects anyway, I thought it would be a great to investigate Wikipedia and find out how their information is acquired, who does the editing and what procedures or controls are in place if any. This way I can educate everyone on how reliable Wikipedia is and hopefully answer any of his or her concerns. My first step was to create an account “Howiepedia”. Now that I have access to Wikipedia I tried to edit 2 pages that I felt would be great contributions to add in the way of just 2 links to relevant sources and photos, which is considered a ‘Minor Edit’. To my surprise my links were removed after a short time without notice or reason. So a couple of days later I tried again and the same thing happened. One of these Wikipedia pages is of my hometown Danbury Connecticut that has other links to other sources and other websites, so why was mine removed? The other link was on a page called ‘Adventure’. This page has one small paragraph with no other sources or links. So let me put a link to my website since Looking for Adventure.com is the ultimate adventure source and the epitome quintessence and personification of the word ‘Adventure’. But wouldn’t you know it, my link was removed without notice or reason. So now I was interested in knowing if others have had similar problems like mine. I searched the Internet to find out what others are saying about Wikipedia. Wow! It seems I am not alone. There seems to be secret cult of editors that makes even the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) look tame. Is there some kind of prejudice judging going on? Are there procedures? Who’s deciding on what information is relevant and why? Are these editors just puppets that are controlled by some kind of strict influence or are these editors just rogue radicals who have been disillusioned by the power to edit without oversight? Well I need to find out more because this is very serious that a major information provider has no reliable oversight that is open to public review in order to assure accuracy and the control of information. We shouldn’t have to fear a behind the door manipulation that may not have the human populations best interest in mind. There’s no doubt that we need to have control of our information and knowledge, but only if the public knows the details on how that information is controlled so that we may check and make sure that guidelines are followed and enforced. No one should have the right to manipulate the truth, and also, manipulate the quality and the quantity of information that is available. We should always be trying to educate each other in order to broaden our understanding so that we can continue to mature as an intelligent species on this planet. So that next thing I did to further my investigation of Wikipedia was to……….will update soon (Last update 7.17.09)

Update…July 19, 2009 …As I was revising my text on the 17th, mostly because I’m a terrible writer, I noticed that I actually got a reply from someone from Wikipedia concerning my links that I tried to add on 2 pages. Herby talk thyme replied that those 2 external links did not comply with their guidelines. Yes you heard it ‘Guidelines’. After reading these guidelines it seems that the guidelines are a little too broad, leaving too much room for personal interpretation. Because one of those pages that I added a link too had similar links as do a large percentage of Wikipedia’s pages. Wikipedia has many links to other sources and references, which I have found very useful at times. So why are my links so different? When it comes to guidelines, no writing could ever be completely absolute, for it is literally impossible. That is why we are always questioning and debating laws and regulations in order to further our understanding and hopefully fill in those gaps of information that can be easily corrupted to fit ones own personal interpretation or beliefs. Herby also insinuated that there were some other ulterior motives to adding my links, which I found insulting. It seems that there is prejudice against certain educational resources if they are not in someway inline with someone’s beliefs. Of course this kind of prejudice against information is happening in many places around the world, which are causing many serious problems and conflicts, so I’m not surprised. So it is my responsibility to continue this discourse so that something positive can be learned and shared. Debating and questioning laws and beliefs, to further understanding, is one of my major guidelines in my life. Next…Herby talk thyme mentioned, that if I feel that my links should be added, that I should discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. This I shall do. I thank Herby talk thyme for writing back to me and I hope that Herby talk thyme will share more about how Wikipedia controls and manages the world’s largest online encyclopedia.