User talk:Calitalia

My Personal Strike
I am currently taking my own personal writing and editing "strike" against Wikipedia.org after realizing many of its integral faults and problematic “personalities.”

I have become tired and bothered by people chasing other individuals (like myself) around Wikipedia.org and watching their every word, sentence, paragraph, edit contribution, etc. These people chase others from one article to another, then to their discussion pages and, finally, they even go as far as to try to dominate and pin them down on their own “my talk” or “user talk” page.

I find that the experience has become rather "Orwellian" (i.e., the novel, "Nineteen Eighty-Four"), if not something like Bradbury’s "Fahrenheit 451" or Huxley's "Brave New World." I don’t like to make such cliché references, but it is rather telling of the experience in a metaphorical way. I say cliché, because you would think that in today’s information laden world, especially in a forum of supposed “intellectuals,” that they would know better and not have such tendencies. But, I find it odd that so much time and discussion is spent on so-called claims either for or against a person’s supposed "point of view," while many of these people are acting as if they are in fact “objective” and that they are not exhibiting a point of view themselves. They seek roles as if to make themselves as an "old guard" or authoritarian "big brother" that maintains the status quo and/ or the main assumptions that are published online and copied everywhere across the internet as “authority” or popular consensus. (Ideas published on Wikipedia are often top searches and are also copied elsewhere on other sites, often verbatim.)

In its initial regard, this phenomenon can be seen as offensive, but then it just becomes absurd and ridiculous to constantly find yourself spending time defending and checking out what other people are saying about you, versus actually being pro-active and contributing to the article itself. I have even suggested being pro-active and supportive to other writers, but to no seeming outcome. Wikipedia also does not make it easy to find allies or support, but seems to work better with a secret and subversive network of individuals.

Many people claim to be looking out for the other individual’s interest or the interests of Wikipedia.org and its various articles; but, it really seems to me that Wikipedia is still struggling with contributors and their ego fantasies, if not “authoritarian personalities” masked in a veil of intellect and feigned sincerity. Myself, I didn't come to Wikipedia on a quest for the "The Wizard of Oz," but that is what's its like when conversing with other writers/ editors. Anonymity is not so much the problem, but peoples' predisposition towards garnering more control, power and antagonism.

I find it very ironic that people are quick to point out the infamous "Essjay controversy" of Wikipedia's near past; but, seemingly they did so without sincerity to the person to which they mentioned it; also, they ill considered the appropriateness of the circumstance and context of it being said; then, most especially, they did so without any real sympathy for the actual person that is “Essjay.” It not only seems to ignore the actual truth of Essjay’s confession, but shifts that story from having any self-relevance to the writers/ editors of Wikipedia, to being something that is outside of our selves. It’s as if to demonize “Essjay” and divorce him from the cultural problems and issues that are evident at Wikipedia. It is as though people are using "Essjay," and other like stories or scenarios, to prematurely intimidate and/ or scapegoat others. This way, they can veil their own hypocrisy and keep others on the defensive. Ultimately, these bully writers/ editors (users) of Wikipedia do not even have to have a specific issue with other individuals, but simply a behavior towards "Preemption" and control in a specific domain that we just happen to know as “Wikipedia.”Calitalia (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Calitalia


 * You have utterly missed the point of a lot of what goes on on Wikipedia. For starters, my dealings with you on Italian-American cuisine (the original derivation of Italian-American cuisine from that of southern Italy and Sicily, for example, is really beyond dispute) indicate that you have a lot of valuable information to offer, but you don't make much effort to distinguish it from your own personal experience. You're also very myopic about that experience, jumping to conclusions about your own sphere of knowledge while not really respecting anyone else's. That's a recipe for disaster on Wikipedia. (Deleting big chunks of your talk page is a Very Bad Thing as well -- perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of the memory hole?)


 * See, we're all about consensus here (something even Jimbo Wales seems to have trouble with on occasion). You can't simply come in and add your own information and expect to see it left intact, uncorrected (in particular, your rather purple writing style tends to be rather distracting). It's a simple rule -- if you don't expect your contributions to get potentially hacked to death, don't sign up as an editor in the first place. And regarding the Essjay incident -- that's merely a reminder of what happens when an editor starts invoking authority over sources. Essjay attracted a veneer of authority he had no right to and Wikipedia swallowed it hook, line, and sinker -- and we got bit on the ass when the deceit was revealed. This is a mistake that those of us who have spent a lot of time and effort on the project are in no hurry to repeat, so we must be especially diligent about arguments from authority here.


 * I'm sorry that you find us authoritarian and dogmatic. Wikipedia is a cooperative effort; all we ask is that you learn the rules of the road and try to cooperate. Your reluctance to compromise and negotiate and your screed above indicates you aren't willing to learn how to do that. Haikupoet (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Haikupoet, I make the bold suggestion of "get over yourself," not only because I am awed by how my recent "strike" against wikipedia compels you to make another grandstand on my own talk page, but also because of your continued, patronizing tone, as if you know what is for my own good. Moreover, your ego seems to have precluded you from getting the true drift of what I am really saying. Unlike you, and perhaps many others on wikipedia, I don't look at the editing rules and "culture" of wikipedia as being my religion. I sure am not going to let it brainwash me, much as it seems to have done to you and many others. So, please don't suggest that I am over reacting, missing the point and so on. And no, I don't think that I have a problem with distinguishing general ideas (which are expressed in various forms on wikipedia) from my own personal experience. That is not only an arrogant suggestion, but seems to imply craziness or lack of self perception. Also, your implying that I am myopic is utterly laughable. You know nothing about me, despite a few writings. Perhaps, the problem with you and other people on wikipedia is that you don't understand the basis of true knowledge and wisdom, versus the illusion of it. This is why I made my point to which you felt the urge to respond; but, sadly, to which you cannot seem to truly fathom. Believe me, I have thought about this well enough and then decided that wikipedia is not for me. I heard warnings about wikipedia long before you and othrs said so, but I guess I had to see for myself. Don't flatter yourself and assume that you did it alone; as is the same for other correspondence with other editors. I have observed problems in many areas, structural forms and publishing phenomena. Because of my life experience, outside of wikipedia, I feel confident that I based such judgement on sound comparisons, as far back as to the history of the PC, desktop publishing, email, the the birth of the internet, mass media publishing, politics and so on. Yes, in my opinion, wikipedia has many problems that have yet to even be discussed or perhaps conceptualized. Therefore, my personal "strike" will last for however long as it takes wikipedia to resolve these issues, as I see fit. In this particular instance, I don't look at this writing as being an editing contribution, but simply as a response to or "talk" with you personally. Of course, you don't have to agree with me, and frankly I don't expect you to, but this is indeed my opinion and my experience at wikipedia. There are already people on wikipedia who agree with me, if you see "criticism of wikipedia." If you have any sympathy on this matter, then my only suggestion to you is to resolve such "curiosity" and venture "somewhere over the rainbow"; whereas, perhaps then you will see a different world as compared to the virtual reality in which you confide now. For me, I've been there and done that... In my world, in my experience, I've already discerned suh differences. Welcome to the new millenium Haikupoet! I hope you make a life of it and not the same mistakes.Calitalia (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Calitalia


 * Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haikupoet"

Beyond the Grotesque: Character Assasination takes many forms
"A false Wikipedia 'biography'": I suggest you see the below link to this titled article by John Seigenthaler. It has valid criticism against wikipedia. Imagine wikipedia making a false accusation against someone which pertains to the assasination against former President Kennedy, as well as his brother Bobby. This article appeared in 2005, but is still relevant today in 2008. The assasination took place approximately 45 years ago, but its controversy and theories live on and on. It took wikipedia 132 days to correct the mis-information; yet, that does not include the information being copied to other websites (verbatim), like Reference.com and Answers.com. See for yourself: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm Calitalia (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Calitalia Today, March 27, 2008, ABC news has released a new story on the assassination theories of Bobby Kennedy. You can see the video footage at http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=20826&cl=7144833&ch=130510 In my opinion, this shows how old stories are often by no means "dead" and forgotten subjects of the past. To this day, 45 years after, we are still debating who shot Bobby! Was there more than one assassin and how many shots were made? What's of further interest is how the public media discusses this phenomenon. Obviously, this is a significant matter, dealing not only with Bobby, but former President of the United States John F. Kennedy. As time goes by, it’s easy to minimize the significance of such matters as it concerns the public's sympathy and understanding. However, I'm sure deep in the souls of the Kennedy family, as well as various departments of the U.S. government and select individuals like me; this matter does indeed maintain a profound significance. Imagine again, if any person searched the topic "Robert F. Kennedy" today and yet the false "Seigenthaler" theory was still incorporated in the text of the Wikipedia topic. Some believe that this is a past concern, minimizing such outrages and ignoring the inherent problems that still persist in like areas. Indeed, as of the time of this writing, Wikipedia is featured in three of the top five searches at Yahoo's search engine on the topic "Robert F. Kennedy," including number 1, 3 and 5. Wikipedia is ranked higher than even the other two search results from none other than the RFK memorial and the JFK Library. In my opinion, that's very slanted and by no means forwards the ideas of democracy, freedom of information and intellectual liberties that we supposedly uphold.Calitalia (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Calitalia By the way, if you think the Kennedy Assassinations are of mild significance, then maybe you should also search topics on the Bay of Pigs Cuban Missile Crisis, involving that same family, and the well known legacy of Fidel Castro. Last time I checked, the U.S. strike against Cuba still lives on. And you say, so much for the past? What was the failure and "crisis" of this affair? Groupthink. What's our understanding of modern relations with Cuba, the Soviet Union and other nations of the world? I'm sure if you do some wikipedia searches, that you can get one "opinion." Of course, I always thought that singer Billy Joel's song "We Didn't Start the Fire" (1989) had an interesting take on world events and the human condition: http://www.billyjoel.com/discography/startthefire.html  You can also see the video at YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MuGGQhnJCY
 * The Seigenthaler incident and the lessons learned from it are well-known here and there is little sense in rehashing it, especially since editors such as myself and Christopher Tanner have been involved with Wikipedia long enough to see it come and go. Haikupoet (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Likewise, this is where I disagree with the likes of you and Christopher Tanner, because you seem to take these problems much too superficially. I am not the “crackpot” and your use of such words on your own user page and similarly elsewhere, shows how you contradict your own rules, doublespeak the arguments and then come back around to the same support for the ongoing problems at wikipedia.  You claim that the "Seigenthaler incident and the lessons learned from it are well-known here and there is little sense in rehashing it," but I could not disagree with you more.  This is by no means an incident that has come and gone, despite your eagerness to sweep it under the rug and make it another topic for wikipedia "curiosity" or the basis for wikipedia group think acculturation.  The true crackpot here is the institution called "wikipedia.org" to which you are proudly a member, it seems.  In your world, I guess people's "opinions" like that of Mr. Seigenthaler," as well as numerous established journalists, publishing houses, distinguished professors, universities, etc. must all be unenlightened and incorrect.  It has become "policy" by many of these individuals and institutions as not to site wikipedia, or recognize it as a credible source.  Beyond that, they have actually condemned it and continue to do so, in part and/or in entirety. But, for the likes of you, I guess that the world foremost exists in the collective eyes of wikipedia.  "Free will" and discernment to make independent judgments and understanding is not of importance.  I guess that the world is new and improved in your wikipedia mindset.
 * Incidentally, I find it odd that you have sought out and linked Christopher Tanner's name to this matter. His name was not even mentioned by me or anybody else; and, therefore, I am curious how you made this connection.  Doesn't this phenomenon support my contentions in some way?  You seem a bit obsessed.
 * Finally, I sure don’t care for your advice that this “is not going to endear you to the locals.” There you go again in that “groupthink” mentality.  Not only do you seem obsessed, but preoccupied with your status as an “insider.”  Frankly, I could care less what you or Mr. Jones thinks; because you live in a delusional world.Calitalia (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Calitalia
 * Christopher and I have a common interest in foods, and our paths have crossed much as yours have. And you know what? He's a team player, as I do my best to be. You're not. If you don't like trying to go along to get along, there's nothing stopping you from writing the Calitalia Encyclopedia of Food and Cooking on your own. I shall await it on the new cookbooks table at B&N. Meantime, there are more productive pages I could be contributing to than this one. Haikupoet (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What don't you understand?: I am not on your team.  I don't want to be on your team.  I don't buy into your team objectives.  I am not the subject of your team initiation.  My goal in life is certainly not to write an Encyclopedia and, quite frankly, I don't know why you have tried to box me in as such.  With such comments and behavior, really... you need to get a life!  I don't ever wish to be as jaded, sarcastic and twisted as you.  I assure you, wikipedia is not the ticket to the success to which you allude, anyway; that is with or without your sincere regard.  This is nothing more than an online, so-called “encyclopedia” and you really should not fool yourself into believing that it’s anything more than that, because it doesn’t even meet that objective.   It does not seem to be heading in that direction, either.  In my own case, I know when to be a "team player" and when not.  I know what to hold on to and what to let go.  I also know when to stay and when to run.  So, I leave you and your wiki friends to converse in your same-as-usual mindset, while I maintain my independence from you.  Calitalia (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Calitalia
 * My one and only response to the above is this: if you didn't come to Wikipedia to help write an encyclopedia, what were you doing here in the first place? Haikupoet (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought that you would have understood by now that I am no longer writing articles/topics on Wikipedia.  We are talking about a past tense phenomenon.   My only recent entries have been on this User Talk Page, to which you started a dialog.  Perhaps you don't understand the nature of a "strike."  For instance, the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America precluded writers from contributing to various media, but naturally doesn't stop them from being actual writers.  Instead their focus is solely on the strike, standing outside and criticizing the institution for hopeful change.  Of course, I don't necessarily expect to start a movement.  This is my own "personal" strike.  Beyond that, I don't think I ever took Wikipedia as seriously as perhaps yourself.   I initially started this for the appreciation of writing and various other interests of the intellect and perhaps nothing more than that.  Sometimes I feel that many of wikipedia problems are found in the fact that some of its members take its project way too seriously.  Just at the top of my mind, I think that one of the few other similar examples of such can be found in the early history of Apple Computer.  What can I say, sometimes seemingly successful institutions are actually illusions. Calitalia (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Calitalia

Page wiping
It's generally considered bad practice to delete content from your talk page. Please look up information on archiving your page. Haikupoet (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)