User:FWBOarticle

Me

Started geting involved with Wikipedia by editing FWBO article, hence my name. I'm fluent in Engrish. For this reason, I don't edit article unless it has obvious flaws such as missing vital information or POV bias. Occasionall, I attempt to rearrange entire article which appear to have structural fault in narrative. The best example so far is this article about capital punishment. The worst failure is Buddhism article which is still in mess. For a while, did editing as Yoji Hajime.

My wiki brief is that each individual article should be clear, concise and efficient webpage.

If anyone find my Engrish hard to read, here is advice. Forget plural or singular. It's unnecessaly concept (like noun gender) which English launguage should get rid of. :D

Edit Template 1

Wikipedian Sith

Fear leads to anger.

Anger leads to conflict.

Conflict leads to policy.

Policy leads to power.

Power leads to victory.

Let your anger flow through you.

Your hate will make you strong.

True power is only achieved through

testing the limits of wikipedain policies,

passing through unscathed.

Rage channeled through policy is unstoppable.

The dark side of the wikipedia

offers unimaginable power.

The dark side is stronger than the light.

The weak deserve their fate.

–tenets of Wikipedian Sith philosophy

Wikipedian Sith describe a group of people who revel in edit war while observing the letter if not the spirit of Wikipedia policies and guideline. They explore wikipedia in search of conflict. They will wage delete war ostensibly for the lack of citation or verification. They pump any particular article with their side of arguments (with proper attribution) but never present counter argument even if they are aware of it. They use every opportunity to imply that the other side is biased, citing techinical violation of Wikipedia policies relating to NPOV. Moreover, wikipedia Sith frequently bait the opposing side to voilate wikipedia etiquette by trashing their argument using descriptive words such as "nonsense", "totally pointless" or "moronic". But they will never use these word to directly refer to any wikipedian. If a careless wikipedian commit any techinical violation such as three revert rule or making implicit criticism of a person rather than an argument, wikipedian sith will mercilessly exploit such violation to the full extent.

Even though they are in direct conflict with the idea that Wikipedia is not a battle ground, some recognise that they serve useful purpose in wikipedia. Wikipedia sith always attract other Wikipedia siths on the other side of the debate which somewhat bring the Force into the balance. Because any views, which are properly attributed and cited, are immune from the attack, the battle of seasoned sith lords contribute significantly to the increase in the content of any article as well as articles' adherenace to wikipedia policies. Moreover, anyone who duel will Wikipedian Sith will gain sigfinificant insight into the working of wikipedian policies.

Many Wikipedian Jedi find Wikipedian Sith extremly hard to deal with. Because wikipedian sith push their agenda without violating technicality of wikipedian policy, the battle between the biased and the neutral could end up in the stalemate whose position may be slightly in favour of Sith agenda. This will often induce Wikipedian Jedi shift it tactics to the opposing side of Sith. However, at this point, Jedi has fallen. Any subsequent battle only feed the insatiable appetite of both Fallen. Even if one side "defeat" the opponent through his superior masterly of policies, the balance of the force in the article is still disturbed and it will eventually attract more powerfull Sith lord.

Wikipedian sith can be truly defeated if not elimiatee if one achives true mastery of the Wikipedian policies both in spirit and techivicality. This usually involve meticulous attribution of conflicting viewpoints which elimiate the ground in which Wikipedian sith can feed upon. However, if force battle is not stopped in earnest, the article could bloat to the point where every section of the article is duplicate debate/battle of every other sections. At this point, the article could be declared as toxic waste land. Clean up of such article require substantial rearrangement of overall landscape with expert understanding of particluar topic as well as mastery of wikipedian policies. Anyone who can perform the cleansing ritual are considered as the true Wikipedian Jedi Master.

Verifiability criteria should be re-defined in term of Reliability

I come from Nanking Massacre page which has gone through repeated protection due to recurrent edit/delet war. In my view, the problem is that many claims and counter-claims of atrocities in Nanking Massacre controversy are from published souce. Consequently, both side pump the page with "published" claims and counter claim of atrocities then each side try delete or "contxtualise" each claim and counter claim in their favour. Because these claim can easily cross the threshhold of "verifiablity" (and no original research) criteria, neither criteria were really helpful. I have checked Reliable sources guideline but the current state of guidline only indicate the minimum requirement for verifiablity criteria which wasn't helpful.

"Reliability" of source, IMO, should be defined in term of the process in which information is produced. For example, general journalism usually process information from publically avaiable source amd they are subject to lible/defamation law. Therefore, general journalism are relaible source of fact regarding "current" event or personality. Similarly, academic papers are reliable source of that particlur field of topic due to the peer review process. On the other hand, if I cite archival primary sources (such as in the case of Nanking Massacre), this may not be "reliable" because I did not specify, what process I have obtained such information. More nuanced example is a book "Robert B. Edgerton, Warriors of the Rising Sun:: A History of the Japanese Military" which was cited in Nanking Massacre page. The book is certainly a "verified" source. But I have discovered that the author's background is cultural antholopology. So the source is verified but are less reliable