Changes

WR, in my humble opinion, is just extension of the WP thought police and arbcom, and such has lost sight of it's mission.  WR is now, just an apologist for WP and  a haven for the miscretin wikipeidiot admins and other power drunk punks, who's respect for others and rule of law is non existent.  WP is a Canker Sore on the internet and, in my simple opinion, can not ever be reformed.  Wikipedia must be dismantled, it's tax exempt status, revoked and the servers, which houses WP purge of the stinking Cancerous mess of wikipeida and it's lies, mis-information, and virtual altar to the tin god Jimbo, the magnificent.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 22:52, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

WR, in my humble opinion, is just extension of the WP thought police and arbcom, and such has lost sight of it's mission.  WR is now, just an apologist for WP and  a haven for the miscretin wikipeidiot admins and other power drunk punks, who's respect for others and rule of law is non existent.  WP is a Canker Sore on the internet and, in my simple opinion, can not ever be reformed.  Wikipedia must be dismantled, it's tax exempt status, revoked and the servers, which houses WP purge of the stinking Cancerous mess of wikipeida and it's lies, mis-information, and virtual altar to the tin god Jimbo, the magnificent.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 22:52, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

== A word from Blissyu2 ==

== A lot of words from Blissyu2 ==

My main criticism of Wikipedia is now and has always been the ability for Wikipedia to change truth on important issues.  On many very important issues there are multiple viewpoints that must be expressed in order to get an accurate perspective, and it is impossible for anyone to speak or write about them without major bias.  Trying to remove the bias leads to removing the factual aspects of the case.  Because Wikipedia aims for Neutral Point of View, they forbid experts to comment on topics, which leads to a lot of idiots writing dumb articles.  On top of that, experts do secretly edit articles, and secretly control them, to pervert the article.  What really should happen is that articles are owned by experts.  If an article cannot be written by just one person, then multiple competing articles should exist to reflect all biases.  Biases are an important part of historical revelation.  I have written many times, and proven pretty conclusively I think, that Wikipedia's article on the Port Arthur massacre, a very important event in Australian history, and even moreso to myself personally, is written horrifically inaccurately.  Not only that, but the majority of people who have contributed to it have tried to present accurate information, but have been forbidden from doing so.  Because of Wikipedia's inaccurate display of that incident, the generally accepted truth of that issue has changed dramatically, with today as many as 20% of people accepting Wikipedia's version of events, as opposed to less than 5% 5 years ago.  On top of that, when Thebainer added the "Conspiracy theories" section, listing some of the least well known theories, and only mentioning their conclusions, rather than the facts that they are based on, combined with saying why they are not believed, he introduced what is called "disinformation".  It pretends that these are the only alternatives, when in reality they are not the only alternatives, and indeed represent a minority view even smaller than the minority view presented by Wikipedia.   

My main criticism of Wikipedia is now and has always been the ability for Wikipedia to change truth on important issues.  On many very important issues there are multiple viewpoints that must be expressed in order to get an accurate perspective, and it is impossible for anyone to speak or write about them without major bias.  Trying to remove the bias leads to removing the factual aspects of the case.  Because Wikipedia aims for Neutral Point of View, they forbid experts to comment on topics, which leads to a lot of idiots writing dumb articles.  On top of that, experts do secretly edit articles, and secretly control them, to pervert the article.  What really should happen is that articles are owned by experts.  If an article cannot be written by just one person, then multiple competing articles should exist to reflect all biases.  Biases are an important part of historical revelation.  I have written many times, and proven pretty conclusively I think, that Wikipedia's article on the Port Arthur massacre, a very important event in Australian history, and even moreso to myself personally, is written horrifically inaccurately.  Not only that, but the majority of people who have contributed to it have tried to present accurate information, but have been forbidden from doing so.  Because of Wikipedia's inaccurate display of that incident, the generally accepted truth of that issue has changed dramatically, with today as many as 20% of people accepting Wikipedia's version of events, as opposed to less than 5% 5 years ago.  On top of that, when Thebainer added the "Conspiracy theories" section, listing some of the least well known theories, and only mentioning their conclusions, rather than the facts that they are based on, combined with saying why they are not believed, he introduced what is called "disinformation".  It pretends that these are the only alternatives, when in reality they are not the only alternatives, and indeed represent a minority view even smaller than the minority view presented by Wikipedia.   

:::::Is there evidence one way or the other whether User:Zordrac is another sockpuppet of the author of the PoetGuy Caper?  My reading of [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20205&view=findpost&p=127804 this post by FT2] leads me to infer that FT2 believed Zordrac to be yet another character in the PoetGuy cast of characters.  Have I misread FT2's analysis?  —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:30, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

:::::Is there evidence one way or the other whether User:Zordrac is another sockpuppet of the author of the PoetGuy Caper?  My reading of [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20205&view=findpost&p=127804 this post by FT2] leads me to infer that FT2 believed Zordrac to be yet another character in the PoetGuy cast of characters.  Have I misread FT2's analysis?  —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:30, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

:::::Also, can you direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "Proabviouc claimed that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com."  [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:40, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

:::::Also, can you direct me to the place (page and passage therein) where, [http://mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_crowdsourcing&diff=71341&oldid=71340 as you write], "Proabivouac claimed that I created the Poetlister identity, based purely on the fact that I had invited Poetlister to use Classmates.com."  [[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 19:40, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

Um, User:Zordrac is me.  LOL.  I have used Zordrac since 1996, Blissyu2 since 1998 and Cat since 1992.  I have said on many places that they are all the same person.  Most of the rest of the time, I use my real name (usually just my first name), Adrian.  There are other people that use the name "Zordrac", many other people that use the name "Cat", and a few other people that use the name "Blissyu2" (mostly impersonators - for example Blissyu2 on Wikipedia is not me, but rather was created by probably Antaeus Feldspar or Longhair to impersonate me).  However, I can confirm that indeed User:Zordrac on Wikipedia is the same person as Blissyu2 on Wikipedia Review.  

Um, User:Zordrac is me.  LOL.  I have used Zordrac since 1996, Blissyu2 since 1998 and Cat since 1992.  I have said on many places that they are all the same person.  Most of the rest of the time, I use my real name (usually just my first name), Adrian.  There are other people that use the name "Zordrac", many other people that use the name "Cat", and a few other people that use the name "Blissyu2" (mostly impersonators - for example Blissyu2 on Wikipedia is not me, but rather was created by probably Antaeus Feldspar or Longhair to impersonate me).  However, I can confirm that indeed User:Zordrac on Wikipedia is the same person as Blissyu2 on Wikipedia Review.  

Unless you want to think that I was hacked by Poetlister.  My e-mail address was closed down thanks to Somey (which is sort of like hacking, but not quite), and my Wikipedia Review account was hacked by Somey, plus of course Somey "bought" my site from Selina, who never owned it in the first place.  But I am pretty confident that Somey/Selina are not Poetlister.  Somey and Selina may well be the same person, but that is another issue.  I can't prove that, I just believe that they seem to be the same person. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:53, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

Unless you want to think that I was hacked by Poetlister.  My e-mail address was closed down thanks to Somey (which is sort of like hacking, but not quite), and my Wikipedia Review account was hacked by Somey, plus of course Somey "bought" my site from Selina, who never owned it in the first place.  But I am pretty confident that Somey/Selina are not Poetlister.  Somey and Selina may well be the same person, but that is another issue.  I can't prove that, I just believe that they seem to be the same person. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 19:53, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

== [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] ==

== [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] ==