Rational thinking as basis for a discussion
editThe site is under construction. This will be here a translation of the German text of the same user, with the hope, that of a rational discussion about what is objective and what not evolves, especially when it refers to actual events.
Freedom of the press and wiki
editThe site is under construction. This text intends to open a discussion over reliable (or not) sources.
More exact: Money addiction (not mentioned anywhere). The most dangerous from all addictions. The addicted person endangers mostly the whole of the society, especially when this person manages to become more and more money, but also itself. Because this person will never be happy, even if it manages to have all of the geld and the power of the world. Isn't it our duty to secure the society and the democracy against the dangers of such an addiction and to try to prevent it?
Are these persons in this meaning not really poor? I mean; they NEVER have enough. Maybe we should make thereafter a kind of donation act in favor of Mafia bosses and of rich people (or presidents) around the world... Should this donation involve money? Actually not, this would be only an irony.
Torture and wiki
editMy question to every torturer is: When I sign a paper, after being tortured, that "confirms" that I agree to something impossible, like "blood is white" or "my pencil can fly like a bird", will this mean, that blood is really white and that my pencil is flying?
My question to every editor in wiki would be thereafter: if a source (reliable or not, that's irrelevant) says something like "trump is an alien from Mars", should we then accept and write in Wikipedia that this is so? And if every source we can reach at a point of time claims something like this, should we accept it and write it like this? Should we really let common sense fully out of discussion?
How can wiki be objective?
editThe site is under construction. This part will try to find a consensus about the decision making in wiki.