User:Anonymous081222
FACT: MSG causes migraine headaches and other problems in many individuals
FACT: The MSG article does not reflect this fact
FACT: The MSG article is not neutral
See my discussion page for more details.
Name:
My user name is Anonymous081222 because I dislike coming up with internet names and just wanted something so I could deal with a particular immediate issue. Being inspired by a particular issue to start contributing is not single-purpose, however. Unfortunately, some attempts have been made to discredit my efforts due to choosing this name. I was originally thinking of changing it, but due to recent events I am now very proud of this name.
Purpose:
Contribute to the honesty of wikipedia. I have a particular interest in defending the MSG article from a huge propaganda effort.
History:
On 081222 I happened across the wikipedia MSG article. I tried adding the factual, inarguable, understated, and cite-supported "some people claim to experience migraine headaches after consuming MSG" to the article, but apparently some feel the inarguable should be argued anyway. I've been working hard ever since to make sure the page is updated with this single concise fact.
I rarely post to the internet, but felt compelled to make sure the facts in the MSG article were corrected. I've been doing technical writing for many years, so had a good foundation to start from.
MSG log:
Accidentally stepping in a war zone (Started 090109)
I am going to start a short log here about my experiences on the MSG page. Wow, it has been ... interesting. My original, understated little sentence "some people claim to experience migraine headaches after consuming MSG" has turned into a massive campaign by the opposition to do everything under the sun to keep the term "migraine" off of the MSG page. There's a big argument on the talk page. It's been really crazy. Those on my side have been quite logical, while the opposing position have used all sorts of rather inappropriate techniques ranging from attempting to undermine us personally, trying to show how much they know about wikipedia by throwing around a lot of terms and links (valid info, but used in this context to show how much they know), making "sockpuppet" accusations, suggesting I just go away, using phrases like "something serious adults pay attention to", etc. Again, really crazy. I guess they have a stake in the opposite viewpoint because it's sure not a matter of good logic. I've been honest about my stake in it: I wanted to make sure the factual information was presented in order to help people out with something I know a lot about. Pretty simple, a good, honest motivation that is completely supported by the facts. Unfortunately, no end of irrational arguments.
wikipedia is an important source of information. It's got to be corrected on that point.
Dirty tricks and techniques
Over the weeks, I've found that there are a lot of interesting, rather dirty techniques used in the debate [that said, make no mistake, I appreciate people reasonable debate techniques - it is just that they were sadly in short supply at this point]. While I dislike such things and avoid them whenever possible, the "opposing side" in the debate have lowered themselves to such inappropriate techniques as:
- Bringing in pre-existing, non-neutral allies (who sometimes briefly pose as neutral, but so far no one has been a particularly good actor)
- Lack of constructive input; in other words, essentially saying "no" to everything instead of offering to help rephrase, find cites they like better, etc.
- Blatant, invalid accusations of using sockpuppets (totally baseless; someone else agreeing with my point DOES NOT equal a sockpuppet)
- Listing wikipedia links and terms in an attempt to show how much they know; in other words, attempt to strengthen their position by throwing these around
- Putting little hints throughout their posts that attempt to undermine my reputation
- Starting a new discussion with their own point at the top of the page (rather than continuing the existing discussion) (done twice in a row now)
- Blatant use of opinions as fact
- Accusations that points haven't been addressed when they have been
- Blatant use of non-neutral words that carry strong connotations
- Blatantly attempting to provoke an emotional response from me by stating and implying that my views are irrational.
- Attempting to outright discredit me and those who agree with my viewpoint
- Ignoring valid cites
- False accusations of edit warring
- Applying edit rules and behavior policies to myself and those that agree with me, but not to themselves (i.e., the opposing viewpoint)
- Sneak in their own points when the article was "locked" (says locked but not locked - my good faith attempt to remove it resulted in a "real lock" and accusations)
The list goes on and on and continues to grow. I have no use whatsoever for such techniques and frankly anyone with a valid point does not need them.
Even dirtier tricks
A few days ago I realized that I was getting no logic from the other side of the debate, only "no" against each and every possible compromise and good-faith effort. I finally "called some of the people on it", so to speak, and they misinterpreted (?) those as personal attacks. Well, that opened the door for all sorts of true personal attacks on me.
The latest is to accuse those that agree with me of being sockpuppets! Terribly inappropriate, unfounded, and false. I constructively responded, and am waiting for the results. I could go into the details, but I won't just in case I'm not suppose to discuss it or something like that.
This "coincidentally" corresponded to when I had publicly declared I was taking a break from posting.
Well, anyway, back to my break ... at least until I'm provoked back into posting again ...
Cites don't count
Apparently, those perpetuating the propaganda effort on the MSG article feel that one good way to debate (other than the afore mentioned dirty tricks) is to ignore valid cites. Those that support my side's view, anyway. If it supports their view, they are all for it.
Compromise isn't an option
Well, when two parties disagree, it is traditional to compromise. Perhaps by representing both viewpoints in a NPOV statement? Well, apparently the opposition doesn't believe that is reasonable. Propaganda doesn't allow for compromise, I guess.
Multiple editors
The opposition has found that if you want to bypass the 3RR, the best way is to get multiple editors. Pretty simple. And totally inappropriate.
Editors apparently don't have to be involved in the discussion
Ah, here's a good one. Some editor comes in and reverts my changes. And isn't even involved in the discussion. Inappropriate. Good for perpetuating propaganda by ommision, though.
Don't be on the defensive, go offensive
Well, the opposition decided the other day to stop defending against my statement and put one of their own, turn the tables. So now I'M the one fighting a statement in the article. Pretty smart. But transparent.
Anonymous081222 (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)