Wikipedia talk:How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle

Inspiration
This essay was inspired here --Dweller (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to take you too seriously, in spite of your warning that this essay is only intended to be humorous, but I must: The type of competitive POV-pushing you describe can work great, as long as people on all sides of the pole have equal access to computer resources. Unfortunately, computer access, like other aspects of wealth, is far from uniform across the world. Free-wheeling pole-pushing will therefore always lead to systemic bias. The only way to somewhat contain bias is for us all to actively strive toward NPOV. --mglg(talk) 17:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah! Thanks for that. You've prompted me to make a crucial amendment. The nice thing about POV pushers is that numbers aren't the key, as 1 super-duper POV pusher can be the pole-straightening equivalent of many slacking pushers. Seriously, what I'm trying to say is that of course we'd all prefer everyone to edit NPOV but nil desperandum - POV pushers aren't as destructive as you might fear. --Dweller (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Both useful and amusing. You may see this analogy pop up (without attribution) in management and negotiating seminars across the lands. Thanks for the laughs. ៛ Bielle (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Iwo Jima image
It's a magnificent image of people putting up a flagpole at an angle, but I wasn't sure about using it... I don't want to cause offense. In the end, I reckoned people probably wouldn't be offended. However, if I find another image, I'll replace it, just in case. Or if you find one, drop me a line at my talk page. --Dweller (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that in seven years of dribbles of people looking at this page, no-one's been so offended that they have taken any discernable onwiki action, so I'm happy to leave it. --Dweller (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Commentary
This analogy has flaws: The issue of Wiki Pole Positioning & Orientation to Verticality ("WP:POV") is more nuanced than that.

If the pole is being pushed equally in all directions as the author fondly imagines - then the net force on the pole sums to zero and it's velocity will not change (See Newton's laws of motion). This means that as one team of editors is in the process of attempting to straighten the pole, such that it's velocity is positive in the direction of straightness - then the addition of an equal number of pushers who desire the pole to be aligned to their own alternative estimation of the local gravitational vector will result in the pole continuing past the "true" vertical and off into the opposite lean - where in fact, nobody involved desired it to be.

The useful part of this analogy is the implication that editors who are attempting to straighten the pole in the face of a mass of POV pushers should "lighten up" as the pole reaches the desired position, then pile large numbers of books and magazine articles (preferably those with a reputation for being "heavy reading") around the base of the article (er..."pole") until it is able to resist any further efforts to rotate it.

These Wiki Pole Rotation Supports are often known by the acronym: "WP:RS" - and an urgent call for more WP:RS may frequently be heard during pole-straightening efforts where POV pushers have become involved. SteveBaker (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * One day, in another life, if I've been a good boy and the forces of Karma are kind to me, I'll come back as someone who understands science. I'd like that. In the meantime, I'm happy to relax in the knowledge that clever people like Steve make things work, make us better, invent gadgets and stuff like that. Which is great. --Dweller (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Connections with dialetics?
Discuss. Deadagain33 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC).
 * I'd not heard of dialetics until I read your post just now. From a brief skim of the opening paragraph of dialetic, even in my wildest dreams, Wikipedia is not like that, and never will be. --Dweller (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)