User talk:Amaraiel/Archive/May 07

Ab Absurdo
Wow, I'm going to be completely honest people. You've completely failed this test. I joined Wikipedia because of the following things: 1) Teachers are beginning to tell students that Wikipedia is not a good source for information when researching for a paper. It was my task set forth to me by a number of other students (sorry I don't think I can cite that) to see if I could somehow reason with Wikipedians and find just cause to show a teacher as to why Wikipedia should be an allowed source.. Apparently, Wikipedia has become what humanity is to the christian bible. People who rewrite facts to suit their own image. The reasons intellectuals such as myself have lost faith in the Bibles ability to represent itself is because it no longer represents what it was supposedly written for: The word of the Christian God. It is now a soapbox for people to voice their beliefs from generation to generation. My point? This discussion did not warrant the level of rhetoric in which in was responded with.

2)To see how much of Wikipedia is a legitimate informational breeding ground and how much of Wikipedia is a breeding ground for insecure people to show what they a good at. Which is admirable, but it's been taken too far.

Ad Rem: My teachers are correct and I fully support their decision. Wikipedia is no longer a reliable source of information. Because when you take into account the amount of childish antics that goes on behind the scenes where all this information is supposed to be compiled invalidates everything. Consequently, I am writing a paper on Wikipedia regarding it's authenticity. While I doubt that every part of Wikipedia is as pointless as what I have seen as of late: The greater portion of my observations is the worst part. Have a great day and Blessed Be.


 * Huh? You're surprised -- shocked! -- that editors are editing from their own viewpoints.  Where else would they be editing from?  We are not, as your self-described rant would have us be, as pure of human foibles as the Word of God.  If that's what you're looking for, go out to the desert, find a nice cave, or buy some magic mushrooms from the guy down the street.  God may just drop by and give you some pure knowledge there and then, but you will find only fellow humans here.


 * Bon voyage, and sorry we disappointed you.  --Dynaflow  04:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that your initial experience has been so negative. I can see why you feel the way you do. Wikipedians are encouraged to be kind to newcomers, but apparently they weren't, as can be seen on Talk:Virginia Tech massacre in regards to you.

I just want to apologize again for that. I also want to encourage you not to give up. Your experience had largely to do with a technical aspect of wikipedia. Wikipedia has its own rules, and it is hard for a newcomer to understand them, in regards to this. People interpreted your merger proposal in a very negative way, because it was not in line with a lot of standards that you just weren't familiar with. Their response was uncalled for.

Wikipedia has its weaknesses, and its bad editors, but the only way that it will ever be good source material is if good people ignore the not-so-good ones and keep fighting for that goal. I invite you to look at examples of wiki-victories in that regard here.

Please don't give up. It'll be worth it. I started out with similar goals as you. It has been hard, but, as a whole, not disappointing. Wrad 04:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Uncalled for"? People disagreed with the suggestion, not the person who suggested it, and they did so relatively politely albeit strongly. Being able to take rejection graciously is a part of communicating on the Internet, or anywhere, for that matter; you can't expect everyone to agree with you all the time. (I'm really not sure how the reliability of Wikipedia is related to a failed merge proposal.) Phony Saint 04:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

From Dynaflow's Talk page:
That's exactly it. You've once again proved my point. Not only did you completely leave your neutral thought process (that's supposed to be all but required in a Wikipedia editor) at the door when you left a message on my talk page, but you replied with absolute arrogance. Arrogance is not what people look for when they are trying to find information for a critical school paper. Especially that little magic mushroom comment, which was all but mature. One more thing, you failed to see my point when responding to my point about the 'Bible'. I'm not looking for a religous pilgrimage; I'm Wiccan. The pollution of the Bible by biased sources is the reason I am Wiccan. Among other things in the practice that click with me, but thats beside the point. Their are places where an opinion is ok and places where it is not. This should be one of those places where it is not ok, because alot of people depend on editors such as yourself for information.You fail to see a bigger picture. You disappoint more then just me with your actions. You disappoint countless students. Even if you have no part in editing material that would be research information, your arrogant attitude doesn't help to set straight the ones that do have a part in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaraiel (talk • contribs)


 * I have not been following those VT-related pages as thoroughly as I was a few weeks ago, when I had the things watchlisted in order to help with the rampant vandalism they faced in the aftermath of the shootings. Looking back through that Talk page now, I can see that your proposal was not treated gently.  It was subjected to severe criticism and roundly condemned as a bad idea.  It's often hard to take criticism, especially when care hasn't been taken to dull its edges.  However, I cannot see why this would shake your faith in Wikipdia.  It, in fact, strengthens mine.


 * Here is why: The process, though seemingly harsh -- particularly to those who make the mistake of personally identifying with the ideas they put forward -- worked. It took a bad idea (and it was a bad idea) and stood firm in the face of it, in the face of its persistent promotion and vigorous lobbying for its adoption.  The idea was dissected in what turned into a de facto post-mortem so that, should anyone propose that idea again, it could be dealt with even more quickly and efficiently than it was this time (your proposal, in fact, was not the first along these lines to die a death by discussion).  That Wikipedia maintained its integrity and didn't approve of the proposal you put forward is to its credit.  --Dynaflow  04:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Phony Saint's response
To be honest, Wikipedia wasn't and isn't a reliable source in the strictest sense, and attempting to prove so is folly; Wikipedia itself doesn't claim itself as a reliable source. However, it is generally a good starting point for looking up a topic (see Reliability of Wikipedia.) Your teachers are more or less correct.

If you still feel that you can actually make a merge work, you could try making a test merged article at User:Amaraiel/Virginia Tech. However, with the two articles at 37 and 61 kilobytes in size, it's better to leave them separate so they don't get too large as per Article size. Phony Saint 05:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)