Dynsys

Welcome!

Hello, Dynsys, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Dmcq (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback

You said as much on your user page, and in the discussion you're taking part in. Would you really welcome the decline of Wikipedia?

Lectonar (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

 

Of course not, as it would need to start a new collaborative website from scratch (reach critical mass, etc..).

But this possibility needs to be seriously considered, if we want to avoid it. For example, see the policy:

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."

Besides its obvious lack of intellectual ambition, this policy is clearly designed to fit the interests of the ruling class, who may well, at the end, rule over an impoverished territory. This strict policy allows the unrestrained growth of information for current events (this is WP's main success), but it blocks the flow of more advanced knowledge. Educated persons read newspapers, not academic stuff. You wanted an accessible encyclopedia, you got a human-generated "google news".

Of course, primary sources can easily be manipulated, but it is better to rely on the next specialist who will come across the article (and better organization of the reference list could help manage the huge flow of primary sources resulting from the relaxation of this policy). And personally, I prefer relying on this manipulation than on the manipulation made by those writing secondary sources in peer-reviewed journals (as I prefer WP over NYT/WSJ for balanced news).

If I knew those rules before, maybe I would not have contributed (but fortunately, editors did not recall me them, they were busy elsewhere...).

Also, articles should be "good enough" for inclusion into an encyclopedia, but they should not be "too good", so as not to be flagged original research. It is ridiculous. Choose your side: either high-quality knowledge, or low-quality administration and editing Dynsys (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a forum

Your contribution to the original research talkpage looks to me more like an unconstructive rant that a follow on constructive discussion about what the section was about. Wikpedia is not a forum but some more general discussion like that is tolerated to some extent on the village pump pages, please try to be more constructive though. Dmcq (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss your general problems with Wikipedia in an appropriate place as for instance I indicated above. It is not appropriate to just say ignore a policy and then go into complaining in general about Wikipedia where you did. What you are doing is disruption. Dmcq (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Multiple Accounts -Final Warning

Hello again. I see that you have removed my previous note about multiple accounts. That's OK. However, since you have provided no explanation of what you are doing or why you are operating multiple accounts please be aware that you will find one or both of your accounts blocked if you persist. TNXMan 16:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

it is fine if you ban/block/whatever, I just discovered scholarpedia

comments

Many thanks for your detailed comments! Pundit|utter 22:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)