67.167.74.196

October 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at Talk:Hunter Biden, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Muboshgu, Pretty hard to assume good faith at this point, my dear fellow. My new edit, which was utterly pertinent to the way in which the preceding discussion was (not) handled, was blanked (censored) by another editor. I would agree that THAT is indeed disruptive, but I wouldn't expect to see a warning on their page. One only need look at the user page of the supposed 'victim' of my 'disruptive editing' to see an activist, politically-motived editor (one of many) allowed to disrupt and assume bad faith with self-righteous impunity (I wonder WHY and HOW?) wherever they go on this project. It sucks to have to deal with a biased behemoth such as Wikipedia. But I'm not the first and certainly won't be the last. Far better editors than I have lost faith in this project and walked away. Sad. I'm sure that it is indeed 'beyond disruptive' to you, to have to bring impartiality back into Wikipedia at this point when things have fallen so far, but it needs to happen if the project is to be safe in the long term. All we want is a better level of impartiality and admins that actually live up to policy and evenly apply it. That's it. I've made my point. Cheers

If you would like a chat some time about my "activist" editing and just what you think you read on my user page, feel free. I'll take on each topic one by one if you like. Koncorde (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you think your user page leaves one with the impression that you don't allow your biases to bleed into your editing on Wikipedia? The first rule is to approach this project with impartiality. A read of your user page reveals someone ready to right what they see as great wrongs and go into battle for what they believe is correct. Does this flavor your editing? I believe it does, but what do you think? This runs contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Tell me why anyone would care what your beliefs are if you're editing according to policy? Does this speak of someone who selectively cherry-picks sources and denounces other sources to suit their published agenda? Why, yes I think so. But what do you think? Is this someone who censors any dissent to the prevailing power dynamic that coincidentally and very happily supports their political view? Well, yes, because you showed that today and correctly guessed that there would be absolutely no opposition to your censorship from any one in authority. In fact it was thoroughly rubber-stamped. Is this someone who will obsessively hang out at current newsworthy articles, like Hunter Biden, to make sure that any dissent to their beliefs is squashed immediately, safe in the knowledge that authority has got their back? Yup. Tell me, let's reverse the political agenda of your User page to the opposite side of the spectrum. You ok with that? I mean, if you're editing according to policy, one should be allowed to espouse right wing views and show their intention of how they're going to apply these opinions to articles. Not ok? Hmmm? You are every bit the activist editor, and you really should have no place here. There's a lot of you and collectively you've done a great deal of damage to the trust and reputation of Wikipedia.

I think you misunderstand how wikipedia works. The articles are written from a NPOV which does not means that it reflects the opinions on reliable sources (WP:PROPORTION, WP:FALSEBALANCE), but that doesn't mean users are expected to be dispassionate and being impartial is not a tenet of being a wikipedia user (there are many users with passionate feelings about subjects). Per WP:NPOVFAQ.

You seem to be placing a great deal of weight behind the idea that editors having different perspectives is actually a bad thing. The reality is that my opinions, and my interpretation of sources, are balanced by other users being able to check any information added and verify it themselves (or tag it, remove it etc) and vice versa I get to do it to them per WP:VERIFY. As a collective we achieve consensus by agreeing what is the best way to present the reliable sources. We are impartial to the subject (I don't know Hunter Biden, and don't care about him) but I am not impartial to how information is presented about him with respects to following wikipedia policy such as WP:NPOV. That is where a lot of people, such as yourself, seem to fall foul of understanding WP:DUE because you presume that there is some innate exclusion field around a particular POV that you hold that is somehow personal to a you because of a POV we hold related to the subject in question.

To be clear; most users of wikipedia who are long term editors edit thousands of topics across a broad spectrum of interests. I no more hold a POV of Hunter Biden than I do of Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal, the St. Lucie Public Schools, Liverpool, Rebekah Warren or Death of Rebecca Zahau. But, unsurprisingly, people who do hold strong POV's about certain subjects seem to have an issue with me or other users only on those same specific subjects. It's almost like the problem is not with the editors enforcing wikipedia policy, but on the users trying to push their POV in the face of wikipedia policy. So if I am at current newsworthy topics that is because they require attention.

Meanwhile, with regards to my political leaning, I am so far left of the US that Joe Biden qualifies as a barely centrist candidate in my eyes. The idea I have an issue with someone of other opinions to me editing doesn't really make sense when pretty much everyone is to the right of my perspective already. It's like asking "I know you like blue, but what if everyone else liked different shades of red?". Well, okay, crack on liking what you like. Just use the RS and we're fine. Koncorde (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, and there's the rub. RS. Happening to find yourself on the right side of the current crop of reliable sources, with their very thinly veiled analysis and editorial pieces must indeed be a comfortable place to be. You can cite this or that WP, and be extremely confident in the knowledge that CNN or MSNBC will generally support your edit. Many editors and the wider public have significant issues with what wikipedia would describe as reliable sources, hence the growth of alternative media (which is definitely NOT RS, Oh my, no way!) and like it or not, Donald Trump's direct communication via Twitter (censored tweets notwithstanding).

The continuing failure of wikipedia to deal objectively with the tattered state of western journalism and hold journalists and 'news' outlets to account via reformulating the RS list, is a continuing travesty. The situation is only expedient to those currently wielding power at wikipedia because their activist views are more or less in line with the said tattered journalism. Anyone with an opposing view, or even a neutral one is shoved to the side, and generally eventually loses faith in the project and leaves, leading to a growing echo chamber of like-minded, very satisfied and contented NPCs (I know you'll appreciate the video game reference). Look at your situation: you can most certainly partake in some activist editing and pretty much say so on your User page, you can outright censor other voices, and all with the stamp of WP and admin approval.

I don't blame you at all for reveling in this situation and perhaps I could go as far as to say you're genuinely feeling that it's right and a good thing, but the problem is that it's leading to a situation where Donald Trump farts in the wrong direction and an article is created and further articles are spawned from that one discussing this or that minutiae of the composition and political leanings and twitter history of the flatulent gas, at extreme length. There's enormous discussion surrounding the Hunter Biden allegations (outside of most but not all 'RS', strange that) and it's waved away as a 'debunked right wing conspiracy theory'. There is a growing chorus of dissent to the status quo, and I do feel that things will change in time as the public continue to abandon media that is no longer interested in reporting the news. In time wikipedia will have to catch on and unlock the RS cupboard to the dissenters or it will die, or just become a hug box for Leftists akin to Rational Wiki, which for me at times it's pretty much indistinguishable these days.

TL;DR Wikipedia can only be a reflection of the current state of journalism and 'reliable' scholarship, but it's up to editors to aggressively examine these sources and not look the other way because it suits. A reformation at some point will hopefully lead to an impartial encyclopedia, or the pendulum will swing so far that the current wiki power dynamic will reverse with vengeance. 67.167.74.196 (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Happening to find yourself on the right side of facts is more important than being impartial to misrepresentation of what can be seen with our own eyes. I don't agree with a lot of opinion purported to be journalism published by US News Media, or the UK for that matter, in fact I mention it on my user page. It often lacks objectivity, it can be partisan, and it's sometimes even wrong. However, because there always is a however, it's at least summarising key points accurately, still fact checking, and still adhering to some sort of editorial standard even if it comes from a particular point of view. You may not like them, but there is a world of difference between reliable media regardless of where they are on the spectrum (you of course think they are all left leaning, I am telling you they are barely tickling the middle other than a few select hosts, or pieces) vs Fox / Breitbart etc.

The right used to have good news media but it has chosen to distance itself from critical journalism over decades until, in the last 10 to 15 years in particular, it decided to create its own narrative about any given subject because it doesn't like the facts. The result? Those right wing sources were "aggressively examined" and found to be purely ideological. I mean, Fox gave play by play of Obama for playing golf on his day off, are they holding Trump to the same standard? The man who said he would be too busy to golf? And if they do hold Trump to any standard, what happens? Trump tweets to try and force a change, and drive his base. That will never be objective fact.

As for new news media on the internet; it's a mixed bag. Some insightful, some just mirroring old media, others way out there, and others again producing nothing but propaganda paid for by whichever entity you choose to take a look at. The news from the Right is preeeeeetty much just uncorroborated waffle even at the best of times and with the most generous of eyes being cast over it. If you are relying on youtube / twitter / facebook and other social media for your news then you will be much more poorly informed in the long run - which is politically convenient - but you'll have your news explained to you by someone who delivers it without any critical thought- which sums up the idea of an "impartial encyclopedia".

On the subject of RationalWiki, their content is (generally) as well researched as any topic it chooses to cover - with the benefit of being able to call out bullshittery directly. Koncorde (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I read widely. Generally CBS News, Fox, BBC and a smattering of smaller localized US publications. Then I read between the lines from these to form an opinion. I don't rely on Twitter (and certainly not sanitized YouTube, are you kidding?) but it is useful to see what's on the public mind, politically speaking. For example, without Fox, Twitter (or an individual CBS News journalist) one wouldn't even be aware of the current allegations surrounding H. Biden, Giuliani et al. I'm not happy with that at all and I don't think the wikipedia community should be, either.

My opinion is that in the long term you won't find yourself on the right side of facts (as digested, interpreted and presented by current RS) if you stick rigidly to a media that gives 24/7 wall to wall anti-Trump propaganda and analysis, while simultaneously shielding his opponents and their misdeeds. The Hunter Biden allegations are an appropriate and stark reminder. Can you honestly believe a similar situation playing out if this was Trump's purported laptop or any of the Trump Jr's, all else being equal? No, I can't either. By now there would absolutely be an article and hand-wringing in the talk page over whether to split off pieces of it because it's getting too large. Tell me I'm wrong. Wikipedia is in a sense suffering from the Streisand effect. The more editors attempt to conceal an issue or news story, the more attention is given to it.

The scrutiny of Obama was infinitesimally small compared to Trump. Surely this borders on objective fact, even for a hardened Lefty. Something stinks and more people are getting a whiff. It's not in the interests of anyone to be accepting and docile in the face of media that unashamedly propagandizes with a religious fervor, even if you broadly agree with their POV. Yes, we do expect media to be biased on some level, but what we have at this time is biased coverage of an unprecedented magnitude. There's a reason why the old guard are lining up to support and shield Biden - including Bushes and multi-Billionaires, and frankly the news media. Isn't it worth examining that reason, objectively? As I said, it's all good and well (comforting, warm and fuzzy, righteous feelings abounding as one edits on wikipedia with confident impunity and WP citations at the ready) as long as you're in agreement. Not so much when the tide changes. It's like those who would seek to limit free speech not thinking that this power will someday end up in the hands of their opponents. Short sighted. I think this will be played out in the coming years. Old media is dying as people continue to abandon it for failing to objectively report the news. Ad revenue is drying up as advertisers see dwindling returns for their multi-million dollar investments. We've already seen thousands of lay-offs and wholesale restructuring within old media. You have me down as a Fox News stalwart, but I absolutely lump them in the same group. Sensationalism for clicks, mostly. Good journalism is dead, or at best underfunded. I would have considered myself center-Left not that long ago, but I've been dragged to the right for having views that are now just too 'extreme' in the current paradigm. I haven't changed all that much, but news reporting certainly has. 67.167.74.196 (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

---