User talk:Oldperson/Solioquy

Solioquy
'''noun: soliloquy; plural noun: soliloquies 1.	an act of speaking one's thoughts aloud when by oneself or regardless of any hearers''' This is an extension of my talk page. although I do not have ownership rights No one is invited to participate and will be immediately reverted.

Wikipedia is a mixed bag, There are some great admins and editors in particular Cullen328, Nick Moyes, Theroadislong. Demanding, but mature and fair, no doubt that their interest is in maintaining the quality and integrity of Wikipedia.. But there are some real chunkers as well. Deletionists and exclusionists who get their jollies counting coup by the number of articles they deleted. You san see them by their contributions. They are not a credit to Wikipedia and are not doing “gods work” though that is what they would claim.

Then there are the undeclared partisan editors (paid and unpaid, such as interns) whose basic job is to maintain the PR slant of either current or historical pages like, say Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon.

Thom Hartmann more than once mentioned on his television and radio program that he once visited the Heritage Foundation, while there he walked around the big room, desks staffed with interns and on virtually every one of the desks was a computer open to Wikipedia with the intern busy editing.

I would call that a war room. And although we are instructed to AGF, it is intuitively obvious that corporations, think tanks, foundations, even Presidential Libraries and fan clubs, employ paid staff or unpaid interns to monitor WP articles that they feel or of importance to their goals, reputation or financial interests. If not then the CEO’s or board of directors are guilty of maleficence. or incompetence and should be fired. Thus these undeclared conflict of interest editors acting as gate keepers for articles they wish to protect or disparage (such as Global Climate Change/Global Warning”. The answer has to be yes. We are told (warned)  to Assume Good Faith, but that only protects the malefactors which zealously guard their charges (the articles under their care (watchlist)..

These guardians, paid or unpaid, are skilled, quite skilled, at wikispeak, wikilawyering, making it appear that they are always acting rationally by staying within the bounds of AGF, NPOV, DUE, UNDUE, using tools like revert, hat, cot/cob (collapsing comments), Which incidentally has the exact opposite of the intended effect as it draws attention to edits which might otherwise be passed over.

Apparently they can even get harmful (to their stock market price)articles deleted Such as the case of [Dutch Royal Shell per John Donovan at that site: "“I can provide Shell internal documents about Shell’s wish to covertly edit Wikipedia articles about its activities and information indicating that Shell employees did do so."

And what is the purpose of collapsing (cot/cob), hatting (hat/hab). It is none other than the same purpose as revert, but not so blatant as collapsing comments essentially hides them from view of all but the most serious reader, on the other hand whenever I encounter a hated or collapsed block on a talk page, I am drawn to it like a moth to a flame and invariably expand it, finding it more interesting than other comments. Now there are very good and valid reasons for revert, hatting and collapsing, especially when dealing with outright vandalism. But charges of vandalism are often misused to shut out an uncomfortable fact or a threating but valid, dissenting opinion.

Apparently most, but the most inane articles are contentious. Politics, religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, even sports and such stupidity as movies and video games. There is no end to the subjects which incite the viscera of humans.

Human sexuality seems to be one prime example. It attracts opponents and advocates like fly’s to honey or feces. And apparently the ones most motivated to flock to these articles are those with religious, moral or personal axes to grind. They overwhelm other editors (pro or neutral) and are even effective, via constant complaint and whining of having an editor, who threatens their position, blocked or banned.Especially,the more experience editors, excel at civil POV pushing

Religion brings out the guardians of the “true faith”, Catholic, Muslim, whatever.

Politics is no longer about my team vs your team but a culture war, the fear of the old order, the patriarchy to hold on to their power and by that control over women and their reproduction. It is a mis-characterization by some in the media to refer to Trumpism as a cult. It is earnest and serious war, a battleground in which those threatened by a changing world are lined up to bring down the house if they can’t have their way.

The secret to effective advocacy is, besides being deceitful and dishonest, is to bide one’s time, learn the policies and guidelines (PaG), become well practiced at civil POV pushing, if not by actually adding to an article but by editing (removing or changing) via reverts and edits, information that is felt to be injurious to one’s advocacy.

This requires a a degree of learned and acquired competency. One of the charges leveled against an editor is Competence is Required (CIR), with practice, experience and study of PAG one can acquire that competency.

The point of this essay is that malefactors with a mission of pushing or protecting a POV, are expert at playing (undetectable) the wikigame, using wikispeak and undetectable wikilawyering

Am I envious. To the degree that I have not yet acquired the knowledge and skills, nor have the patience and time to acquire same.. yes. To the extent that subterfuge and dishonesty runs counter to my grain. No.