297:, how is a high school student supposed to use an article as a source (keeping in mind that the student is looking for a source because they are generally not knowledgeable about the topic) when the info alters constantly, and editors mock each other's POV's and edits? The student cannot always be expected to be knowledgeable to discern the truth in the arguments, particularly elementary or early high school aged users - how is it useful to them? Academia, by and large, still advocates printed works because of editing (a professional editing staff has looked over the article, in an attempt to work through problems in science texts, find mistakes, and insure a certain standard of writing), verifiability (you know that a text has been written by so and so, and can then look up that so and so and find potential biases), the fact the book will probably be around in a few months to verify your source - all inherent problems with Knowledge (XXG).
266:. Despite the fact that I have never edited a contentious page without first discussing the change and seeking input on the talk page, despite the fact that I have supported changes that I believe to be NPOV that at the same time do not uphold my POV, and despite the fact I have even disagreed with fellow Catholic editors on various issues, I am nonetheless dedicated to a covert action on Knowledge (XXG) that would seek to overthrow any secular opposition. We of the Catholic cabal (which, incidently, includes any Catholic editor who happens to communicate with another Catholic editor on Knowledge (XXG)) are secretly planning to establish Cathopedia, the Catholic encyclopedia online, so that all will succumb to our nefarious plans. We even have a
317:: I have a BSc in Mathematics, and have a large number of history courses beneath my belt (particularly 20th century European history, with a focus from 1918-1945). I am also completing an upper-level course on Greek/Roman technologies, giving me a broad overview of many aspects of their agriculture, mining, ceramics, metallurgy, etc. I am well versed in Roman Catholic theology and culture, and know a little bit about a great many topics (not to brag - it just means my edits show up all over, on a bunch of un-related topics).
183:
382:
but also to alert those on articles such as abortion (to which I am a regular contributor to) that I hold a
Catholic POV. It gives them the opportunity to challenge what I write, and forces me to insure that any contributions I make where a Catholic POV could potentially bias my writing is firmly backed up with sound research and good sources. What's the harm in that? In my opinion, it only helps to limit POV contribution to articles.
21:
108:
387:
In terms of professional knowledge - for me to identify myself as a schooled mathematician does not mean I am somehow better than a self-taught mathematician, but it does mean I can contribute with a certain level of confidence, knowledge, and resources to back me up; this is useful for those looking
381:
OK, here's my support for various userboxes that show a religious/political/etc affiliations; they help identify potential sources of bias for a writer. I have put the Roman
Catholic userbox on my page, both to show I can be (potentially) helpful to consult if a Catholic POV or expertise is required;
300:
Although I find it useful as a beginning source, the multitude of problems, particularly with disrespectful and crackpot or upset editors inserting "jabberwocky" (see favourite word below) have given me a healthy dose of skepticism as to
Knowledge (XXG) ever achieving notoriety as a reliable source.
292:
In my university experience, I have had professors specifically warn against using
Knowledge (XXG), even to check math formulas. Formulas have often been found with editorial errors, and because the articles themselves are open source, they can change from one minute to the next. And these changes
398:
userboxes, but it has seemed to me that negative feedback from fellow
Wikipedians has limited their use, and quickly identifies the user as a (potentially) non-serious and flaky contributor - and on second thougt, that's not such a bad thing either! DonaNobisPacem 20:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
397:
As for boxes that state things like "this user thinks that George Bush is a weenie" or "Hitler is my hero" and "I am a self-identified sort-of-male, cannibalistic vegan-eater, Cathar emulator, genie worshipor, and a gold-fish wannabe" and the like - obviously there is a concern for pointless
293:
are not always for the better, particularly during edit wars, when POV's can become polarized and inflexible. Crackpots consistently insert garbage into articles, and although it is often caught on "hot topic" pages, it often is left unnoticed on less monitored pages. Even on a page like
301:
I continue to edit becuase I enjoy the debates, and like to try and make sure
Knowledge (XXG) users don't find totally one-sided arguments in articles, but I certainly have lost any lofty ideals as to the usefulness of my time spent here (at least temporarily).
288:
I have, in recent consideration, had a certain amount of disillusionment and skepticism over the lofty goal of many
Wikipedians; to eventually become a reputable encyclopedic source that can become a free resource.
392:
It has also helped me to identify other users of similar affiliations, so that I know of other users who might be interested in helping to start new pages based on similar interests or areas of expertise.
357:
I am a family man, meaning I am not on here all the time (although as of late, it's been too much time) - hence my edits can be sporadic, as can my viewing of messages on my talk page.
280:
This is a (rather old) tongue-in-cheek comment in response to removal of contributions due to my identity as a
Catholic, rather than NPOV guidelines, in case you are wondering.
160:
374:
418:
easily frustrated over new editors changing entire articles over, and over, and over, and over, consistently ignoring advice to take it to talk pages
479:
237:
474:
242:
459:
277:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Editor's Note, Jan 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
469:
212:
338:
464:
349:: 05:59, 18 October 2005 - Knights Templar talk page, to dispute whether they were the largest of the military orders.
217:
430:
self-identified sort-of-male, cannibalistic vegan-eater, Cathar emulator, genie worshipor, and a gold-fish wannabe.
263:
26:
I just made my first edit in 2 years on the David Suzuki page. We'll see what happens. (Nov 16, 2008).
115:
454:
449:
132:
86:
55:
39:
267:
20:
436:
an angry person - I try to be levelheaded in all debates, even contentious and emotional ones
89:
61:
48:
337:
If you really feel like looking at material I am working on before I post it, please click
326:
76:
182:
443:
166:
107:
325:: These days, due to limited editing, I am mainly editing here and there on the
304:
I welcome comment and opinion in regards to this issue on my talk page.....
294:
190:
258:
The
Catholic Cabal - bringing Catholic domination to Knowledge (XXG)
413:
impatient as all get out (hurry up and read this, will you?)
34:
365:
Jabberwocky - as in, "That's a bunch of jabberwocky!"
135:
270:to identify ourselves. So beware! We will target
154:
375:Knowledge (XXG) Talk:Proposed policy on userboxes
377:, minus the reference to the goldfish wannabe)
8:
82:
362:Favourite word learned on Knowledge (XXG):
15:
322:Current infatuation(s) on Knowledge (XXG)
140:
134:
25:
7:
228:
203:
177:
126:
102:
72:
44:
284:The Knowledge (XXG) Disillusionment
262:I am a member of the ultra-secret
14:
329:and its associated history page.
181:
106:
19:
264:Knowledge (XXG) Catholic Cabal
1:
480:Wikipedian trumpet players-2
18:
155:{\displaystyle e^{i\pi \ }}
113:This user is interested in
496:
475:Wikipedian trumpet players
460:Wikipedian mathematicians
308:Some brief info on myself
83:
388:for experts on a topic.
156:
470:Wikipedian pianists-3
370:My view on userboxes:
157:
62:English language
40:Knowledge (XXG):Babel
133:
84:Dieser Benutzer hat
465:Wikipedian pianists
408:a dad and husband!
373:(also viewable at
334:Works in progress:
314:Areas of expertise
152:
255:
254:
250:
249:
225:
224:
200:
199:
174:
173:
149:
123:
122:
116:Roman Catholicism
99:
98:
90:Deutschkenntnisse
69:
68:
30:
29:
487:
235:This user is an
229:
210:This user is an
204:
193:
188:This user is of
185:
178:
161:
159:
158:
153:
151:
150:
147:
127:
110:
103:
95:
94:
73:
45:
35:
23:
16:
495:
494:
490:
489:
488:
486:
485:
484:
440:
439:
425:
405:
327:Knights Templar
310:
286:
274:page next.....
260:
251:
226:
201:
191:
175:
164:This user is a
136:
131:
130:
124:
100:
70:
53:This user is a
42:
32:
12:
11:
5:
493:
491:
483:
482:
477:
472:
467:
462:
457:
452:
442:
441:
438:
437:
433:
432:
424:
421:
420:
419:
415:
414:
410:
409:
404:
401:
400:
399:
390:
389:
384:
383:
309:
306:
285:
282:
259:
256:
253:
252:
248:
247:
243:trumpet player
233:
227:
223:
222:
208:
202:
198:
197:
186:
176:
172:
171:
162:
146:
143:
139:
125:
121:
120:
111:
101:
97:
96:
80:
71:
67:
66:
56:native speaker
51:
43:
38:
28:
27:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
492:
481:
478:
476:
473:
471:
468:
466:
463:
461:
458:
456:
453:
451:
448:
447:
445:
435:
434:
431:
427:
426:
422:
417:
416:
412:
411:
407:
406:
402:
396:
395:
394:
386:
385:
380:
379:
378:
376:
372:
371:
366:
364:
363:
358:
356:
355:
350:
348:
347:
342:
340:
336:
335:
330:
328:
324:
323:
318:
316:
315:
307:
305:
302:
298:
296:
290:
283:
281:
278:
275:
273:
269:
268:secret symbol
265:
257:
245:
244:
240:
239:
234:
231:
230:
220:
219:
215:
214:
209:
206:
205:
195:
194:
187:
184:
180:
179:
169:
168:
167:mathematician
163:
144:
141:
137:
129:
128:
118:
117:
112:
109:
105:
104:
92:
91:
88:
81:
78:
75:
74:
64:
63:
58:
57:
52:
50:
47:
46:
41:
37:
36:
33:
22:
17:
429:
391:
369:
368:
367:
361:
360:
359:
354:Please note:
353:
352:
351:
345:
344:
343:
333:
332:
331:
321:
320:
319:
313:
312:
311:
303:
299:
291:
287:
279:
276:
271:
261:
241:
238:intermediate
236:
216:
211:
189:
165:
114:
87:grundlegende
85:
60:
54:
31:
423:I am not...
444:Categories
346:First post
455:User de-1
450:User en-N
196:ancestry.
145:π
295:abortion
213:advanced
403:I am...
218:pianist
59:of the
232:trpt-2
192:German
148:
207:pno-3
339:here
272:your
446::
428:a
341:.
79:-1
77:de
49:en
246:.
221:.
170:.
142:i
138:e
119:.
93:.
65:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
