User talk:JayMan63

Your Heroes in Hell commentary
I removed your commentary because discussions pages are about talking about the articles and how to improve it, not to make general tirades about Wikipedia in general. I want to go through your complaints and respond to them, though:


 * I am writing to say that it NO LONGER MATTERS. That's right. This argument - you can call it a debate or use any other word that carries a semantic load more palatable to your sensitive feelings - has reached the point that it is now damaging the neutrality of other Wikipedia articles, no matter how well researched or how stylistically wrought the words.

I really don't see how this discussion has "affected" other articles, except for Gilgamesh because it is one of the stories in the series. The discussion itself is relatively new and there are not that many people involved. I would not worry about this one discussion to somehow ruin all of Wikipedia.


 * Imagine if you will that you are a new person who is looking for information. As we all know, much of what we find online is suspect. Who knows the agenda of those who post various articles for the search engines to unearth (or would it be unether)? Everyone tells you to check Wikipedia. You can depend on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia has it, then you can depend on it because they do their research without bias.

We do have biases. We try to minimize them in doing our work here, but they still come through. See WP:BIAS for some kinds of systematic bias we probably can't entirely account for (for instance, most Wikipedia editors are male). I will also contend that while lots of information on Wikipedia is probably reliable, lots of it isn't, as well. We do our best to make sure information on Wikipedia is verifiable by independent sources, but we're just volunteers with real lives, real interests, and real opinions about what Wikipedia is all about. It is always an imperfect source, and you must learn to accept this. I have accepted it, and still am highly motivated to improve Wikipedia because I believe there is no resource for information like it.


 * And, then, you suddenly find a discussion taking place that resembles a schoolyard brawl complete with chest thumping and name calling and threats and all that goes with it. How is an outside researcher supposed to value what he/she finds from that point on? This argument has now reached that point. I first thought that it was a really cool thing to be an editor for Wikipedia. Now I am ashamed.

First, you have to accept that people are people and will engage in that kind of behavior. People do it in public all the time. That doesn't make it any less wrong, but it's just part of being a real person, and not some kind of non-emotional, non-opinionated editor. Second, you should value information on Wikipedia because it is verifiable. Claims need to be backed by independent sources. You shouldn't take info on Wikipedia at face value. You also have a responsibility to check to ensure the info you read on here is true or not, and whether a single page on Wikipedia is the subject of so much commentary shouldn't jade your image of the entire project. The issues in Heroes in Hell are complicated, the editors are real people with real opinions, and Wikipedia has polices like "information must be verifiable" that editors try to maintain because they are fundamental to Wikipedia's success. Sorry that you feel ashamed, but I hope this single case does not push you out. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)