User:Cpiral/My Constitutional Bias

Biases can be admitted

With a sound rationale for a personal bias cited, "admit one" into a productive discussion.

Caveat lector

• All is perfect. All could use improvement. I have perfect-improvement consciousness. That will give us endless, thankless tasks. I'll have nothing to do with "nothing do do", and something to do when everything's done.
• Wordplay is important. I practice multidimensional ambiguity. Am big! You? Us? This reversible coat of honor keeps the theme "me" warm in the cold of task-orientation.
• I edit to improve Wikipedia, including myself.

But at least, and foremost, I seek objective consciousness. (Objective consciousness is when one's former biases are notable objects.) These personal biases may make mischief at your expense.

On Wikipedia, more than anywhere imaginable, I can constantly multitask grammar, structure, and meaning; self-expression, and in discussion, candid social feedback. Word play is a nice extra, if I can get it. On the other hand, I simply "Enjoy!" the newspaper.

I'm here to share and learn. Reference material is only click away, so I question any aspect I see in doubt. While answering it from the reference material, I will see even more aspects for later questioning. But I also tend to question the style of a style manual, the links in a guideline for linking, and the editing of editing guidelines, and to edit Wikipedia policies, all before I am qualified.

I've been forced to apologize for this. Why? What makes me wiser now?

Wiser now

First, the size of Wikipedia is continually amazing, and you can still scratch out an evolved niche despite the swaths of ownership where the cabal lurk for god knows why. (They are unable to be objective about discussing their article, and are generally negative.)

Second, the more elements of style, the more aware of my own bias, and the more objectively I apply this knowledge to my internal consensus and in its exposition, the better practice I have in editing.

I learned when it's safe to edit a page:

• Unfamiliar document? First scan for protective egos, those personal thingies which have territory and teeth.
• The history and the discussions are priceless (every single one).
• Discuss first? If you record your edit summaries in a specific and consistent manner, then a dividing line may eventually emerge at the edit summary. If it doesn't fit, discuss first.
• Edit summaries should read neutrally. They could fall onto the eyes of the original author.
• If the page is so loose that you make improvements in every way—topically, contextually, lexically, structurally, and link-wise, and in the all important clarity aspect—then discuss first by posting your revision in it's entirety and with numbered discussion points.

My government

Analogy has been called the seat of learning. I will try herein to learn my editing personality by comparing it to the structure of U.S. government.

There are three branches of my editing personality.

Executive

The governor is an executive branch doer and mover. Spacetime makes movement possible, but we all have mental-musculature with it's strengths-a-bold and weaknesses-a-fear. Good governorship is the proper balance of these, as evidenced by a graceful movement that not only preserves, but endears it's environment.

Editing is the electro-motive force applied to the magnetism of an article. Execution is movement by motive. The electric chair and it's restraining straps are the disgraceful end of un-inhibited animal magnetism, and it is an irony that such execution by electrocution follows laws of life to death.

Police are part of the executive branch. Police follow policy. They neutralize non-neutrally. The finest examples are our exemplary administrators. When editors and articles need to be stopped, call them. There are thousands.

The executive can burnout. It can become addicted. (I really gotta go now...) But Government is not all scary. There's the legislators who contribute new Wikipedia Articles, based on their interpretation of the needs of the land. Then there's the judicious editors: anyone can be an honorable judge.

Legislative

Policies and guidelines and essays are what's "on the books" that can be thrown presented to you during discussions.

Consensus is a political process. The winners are too often the dogged ones, while the wise despise material territoriality and the pack mentality it engenders, and are easily able to simply move to fairer grounds within Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a very, very big pond.

Judicial Branch

Wikipedia articles need judicious editing in a process is repeated until the article is polished.

When the eye calls the judge, there is a question about the laws; where editors tread and stomp, there is a question about the rules. Rules are the abstracted result of a process created by programs created by words. WP:There are no rules like there are no quantum physical particles...until you observe. The rules of language and learning are as subtle and ephemeral as the laws the courts interpret. You must look for them to find them and apply them to achieve a perfected editing technique.

What goes into editing choices can be likened to what a judge does from the bench. Having any mitigating factors as a primary consideration is the natural tendency to wp:assume good faith. The mitigating factors for pages are (1) user pages, and (2) insanely structured, houses-of-cards, pages headed toward deletion or merging. The mitigating factors within articles are the context and circumstances surrounding the "error". Think "zero errors". Prefer freeing the guilty to the smithereens of innocents.

The judicious editor, after receiving the articulation in question, considers applicable precedents buried in the discussion and history pages, reviews policy as necessary, carefully and objectively weighs arguments on a neutral balancing scale, and makes passes the decision on to the executives, who then either edits or grants a stay of execution.

Chief Justice Roberts has this to say about precidence:

I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and even-handedness. It is not enough—and the court has emphasized this on several ocassions— it is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided. That really doesn't answer the question, it just poses the question. And you do look at these other factors, like settled expectations, like the legitimacy of the court, like whether a particular precedent is workable or not, whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments.

Alexander Hamilton said: "To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the judges, they need to be bound down by the rules and precedents." (The Federalist, p78)

The European court system is far less concerned with precedent than the American system is. Roberts is still following Hamilton. I try to remember to respect the past, but the tough love of simple logic arising from new information overrules.

There are no rules for language. If one scans, they miss wordplay; they have not enough time. If one looks for wordplay where there is not any intended, one has too much time. There is no complete set of rules for any grammar or for any sequence word choice. Only the rate of reading speed determines the type of program one is engaged with. The audience for a chosen writing style is as much determined by their educational level as by their expected task-burden of haste. Natural language, (unlike natural creatures) is, an artificial creation and thus has no fitness function. Chompsky labored an ingenious lifetime without finding a scientific set of universal grammar rules for the unerring generation of the language structures to convey information. In other words, there is no perfect judgment of a life sentence. Witness all this wording: does it have the "correct" placements? You may judge, but there is no right answer, only an aesthetic that is based on reading speed.

There are no rules for language. And even if there were, we could not learn them all. We cannot know a language, but only parts of it. We cannot understand a word by itself. It needs a sentence. We cannot understand a sentence. It needs a language... I argue simply for effect, and textualists demand simplicity. But remember? The past is one given, and the future is relatively complex, with many many possibilities for improvement. Hence polysemy, not "police me" is the way to a utopian "philosopher kingdom" that never is, but always will be in existence supplying its own journey to its mysterious self. The way to get there "getting there" is allowing for the possibility that what looks simple is corruptible, and that what looks too complex and ambiguous may have merit. If you have time, perhaps, do not easily discount what seems not to follow the rules of language clarity, but try as you may to make deeper sense of what may appear nonsense: Hegel for example. There are many who disagree with the mysterious nature of metaphysical language, since it is an artificial construction of some vast, human collaboration.

Editing is a judgment of content and is ultimately a judgment of form. Good articless have consistent styles and meet the aesthetic qualities of sensitive users.

Statutes under deliberations here

While judging an editing action or while writing an edit summary or discussing on a talk page, the persona best remain non-personal in order to most effectively fulfill the original intent to edit apple pie. IP users say "I, two, am ImPo-TNT" because IP addresses are people too, albeit often dangerous ones. Their beneficial side effect is to troll for the eleven enemies of truth, but all they catch, or course, is sucker fish. The governing system of our natural language has no absolute, formal grammar. There is posited a universal grammar, but none has been formulated to date.

Strict constructionists would legislate morality from afar because they interpret the text (of the law, policy, or statute) first by finding one clear meaning amongst all possible meanings (as words are famously want to do and be), and them making no allowance for further deductive or inductive reasoning as to the the meaning as it might possibly have meant. All there is is the words, and lots of spacetime between us. Even if the original author were in the jury, they must remain silent, and let the strict constructionism deliberately rule the context, trusting they will not also be textualists.

Textualists would have us believe words could describe reality. But textualism means that the context cannot be taken into account: neither the history leading up to the writ, nor the (badly stated) intent counts once the gavel falls. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says "[it] is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver." That's legislation from afar in two senses: (1)I say what they meant when they wrote. (2)They say what I will mean in my judgment. Neither of us is available for help.

The interpretation of text by an originalist means that text can be interpreted correctly, and is being interpreted correctly by an originalist editor whose interpretation is the only interpretation, and one which the original author would agree with, because it was, at the time the page was saved, perfectly stated, as well as can be expected with words.

Wittgenstein, called the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, would say otherwise about how words represent thoughts. He would disagree with strict constructionism, textualism, or originalism. He thought language an "incomparable essence", but words only a shallow and bewitching pseudo-halo.

We are under the illusion that what is peculiar, profound, essential, in our investigation, resides in it's trying to grasp the incomparable essence of language. That is, the order existing between the concepts of proposition, word, proof, truth, experience, and so on. This order is a super-order between—so to speak—super-concepts. Whereas, of course, if the words "language," "experience," "world," have a use,

it must e as humble a one as that of the words "table," "lamp, "door."

Umberto Eco wrote a chapter in a book, Interpretation and overinterpretation, about texts in the sciences and humanities. He is a literary theorist who also wrote The Limits of Interpretation, and The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts (Advances in Semiotics). . In fact when we make an edit, we have engaged in semiotics.

As a Denizen I treat articles

If I whoosh over an hovel that is outstandingly bad-list-able, a graceful legislator pre-scans the land for context in the categories:

• namespace and subject
• ego population and activity level
• size and complexity

Improvements may seem obvious, but editorship and logical complexities hide therein. My fresh wind may uncover a bias, but if it is entrenched, you may need the Pope's army.

If editors are mostly IPs, if editing activity is sporadic with several weeks of inactivity) and content or style is inconsistent, then I love a good makeover. At least I'll repair any distracting stylistic escarpments over the entire article (sections of overlinking, over-italicizing, over-bolding, over-quotations , etc).

I balance "necessary and sufficient conditions" by leaning editorial judgment towards sufficiency of learning rather than necessity of logic. On the average logic is a wordy drag on the reader and a pompous temptation on the author. Experts and lawyers are the word warriors. Corporate entities call lawyer's guns. Legalese is necessary, whereas friendliness is sufficient. Much more may be gained by keeping thoroughness at bay and going for a flow instead. Excessive thoroughness may dilute attention, unless you are a lawyer or an expert. Logical thoroughness is often futile in an effort to simply relay information to the reader.

Wikipedia lives on another planet entirely. In today's reality relative-absolutism and irrational-rationality rule the masses. 80% of success is simply showing up. 80% of success of Wikipedia is attention to lucidity now for attention to the article later. Wikipedia encourages every reader to attend, and to tend to edit, but by the law of "on-the-job-training", if the job is too hard, the thought train of trainee jumps the forked tracks and is lost, and so is the edit that would have improved the situation. Before editing for thoroughness, I consider it's current sufficiency. Simpleness is friendliness, especially in lead sections. Invite-able is editable is the way here.

Keep it bite-sized. Newspapers write smartly and simply. A rare sentence merits solitary clout as a paragraph.

The basic rules of word choices to achieve the almighty lucidity, are, and I paraphrase:

• to rather make explicit (1)"these" and "those", (2)"its and it", (3)"they" and "theirs".
• Organic change replaces the gratuitous variation with a repetitive lucidity. The topic's core word(s) resound in the article, the section, the paragraph, and the sentence, while a pithy support uses a variety of wording.
• Coherent ordering builds context before new points are introduced. The lucid order of presentation is usually discovered lastly and revealed by later editing which then simply moves whole sections from one position in the article to another.

And now this section of the Order of Lucid has come to an end. [Gavel pounds]