Changes

''First'', by the use of a narrow-minded conception of civility as a weapon against good editors.  This is probably connected with the rise of a ''apparatchik'' class of untalented but politically adept editors who have hijacked the project, and who specialise in the blocking or banning of editors who do not support the party line.  It is no coincidence that my first block ever, four years since I began editing, was over my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Renamed_user_4&oldid=175764532#Personal_attacks strongly-worded complaints] over the departure of the great editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Worldtraveller Worldtraveller], because of a spectacularly ill-judged block<ref>WT complained to an administrator that "Your continued rudeness and failure to remotely discuss your controversial administrative actions just confirms for me that you are a terrible administrator. Whatever I can do to get your administrative tools taken away from you, I will do. [[User:Worldtraveller|Worldtraveller]] 20:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC).  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AInShaneee&diff=111903370&oldid=111751593]. He was blocked for this</ref>.

''First'', by the use of a narrow-minded conception of civility as a weapon against good editors.  This is probably connected with the rise of a ''apparatchik'' class of untalented but politically adept editors who have hijacked the project, and who specialise in the blocking or banning of editors who do not support the party line.  It is no coincidence that my first block ever, four years since I began editing, was over my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Renamed_user_4&oldid=175764532#Personal_attacks strongly-worded complaints] over the departure of the great editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Worldtraveller Worldtraveller], because of a spectacularly ill-judged block<ref>WT complained to an administrator that "Your continued rudeness and failure to remotely discuss your controversial administrative actions just confirms for me that you are a terrible administrator. Whatever I can do to get your administrative tools taken away from you, I will do. [[User:Worldtraveller|Worldtraveller]] 20:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC).  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AInShaneee&diff=111903370&oldid=111751593]. He was blocked for this</ref>.

''Second'', by a plague of cruft, promotional material and crank theories on an almost Biblical scale.   

''Second'', by a plague of cruft, promotional and crank material on an almost Biblical scale.  I include in the latter (crank)category the rash of articles on 'alternative sexuality', for example the atrocious [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_and_cultural_perspectives_on_zoophilia&oldid=213891870 Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty Pederasty] are excellent examples of the latter.  Now these subjects ''should'' certainly be dealt with in an encyclopedia.  But dealt with carefully.  They should engage with the problem that there is little mainstream academic research on such subject, and that almost any theory about it is bound to be speculation. <ref>For example, the thesis that the almost universal repulsion against bestialism and man-boy sex is a comparatively modern phenomenon in human history, and that the modern view is a direct result of Judaeo-Christian culture.  Supposedly before that most human cultures and societies had a benevolent and supportive attitude to such proclivities.  The thesis was proposed (re pedophilia) by Warren Johansson and William Percy (and adopted enthusiastically by NAMBLA), and has an obvious motive: to make a minority seem persecuted, fits snugly into the liberal-left hatred of the church.  But it is mere speculation, and there is plenty of evidence against it</ref>.  An article on the subject of bestiality, for instance, should stick to broad statistics, medical views, carefully balanced views of ethicists, and should avoid academic research that is now known to be flawed or slanted. Anything else is pure original research, and does not belong on the project.

 

I include in the latter category the rash of articles on 'alternative sexuality', for example the atrocious [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_and_cultural_perspectives_on_zoophilia&oldid=213891870 Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty Pederasty] are excellent examples of the latter.  Now these subjects ''should'' certainly be dealt with in an encyclopedia.  But dealt with carefully.  They should engage with the problem that there is little mainstream academic research on such subject, and that almost any theory about it is bound to be speculation. <ref>For example, the thesis that the almost universal repulsion against bestialism and man-boy sex is a comparatively modern phenomenon in human history, and that the modern view is a direct result of Judaeo-Christian culture.  Supposedly before that most human cultures and societies had a benevolent and supportive attitude to such proclivities.  The thesis was proposed (re pedophilia) by Warren Johansson and William Percy (and adopted enthusiastically by NAMBLA), and has an obvious motive: to make a minority seem persecuted, fits snugly into the liberal-left hatred of the church.  But it is mere speculation, and there is plenty of evidence against it</ref>.  An article on the subject of bestiality, for instance, should stick to broad statistics, medical views, carefully balanced views of ethicists, and should avoid academic research that is now known to be flawed or slanted. Anything else is pure original research, and does not belong on the project.

Another example is [[Neurolinguistic programming]].  This falls in between the areas of crank psychology and promotional material.

Another example is [[Neurolinguistic programming]].  This falls in between the areas of crank psychology and promotional material.