User:JohnAugust

I'm interested in issues philosophical, economic and otherwise. I'm a vice President of the NSW Humanists amongst several other groups and interests.

I have a tortured relationship with Wikipedia, I've had too many conflicts with editors over the years, while I have made some non-contentious edits if you look at my history. Those conflicts won't stop me from looking up stuff on Wikipedia, it is certainly my first stop on making sense of things. Nevertheless, I pillage, I don't have any sense of commonality or connection.

Twenty or so years ago, I did give about $500 AU to Wikipedia. But that's enough for one lifetime. I've maintained my login, at least it means I'm spared those so-called "personal appeals" from Jimmy Wales.

My conflicts with other editors on Wikipedia, most recently around Kathleen Kennedy, suggest to me several contradictions with the Wikipedia story. While there is the presumption of good faith, it seems to me this clashes with an incremental judgement, where people are in fact assessed. People were jumping to false conclusions about me and my motives. That presumption of good faith is a propaganda story for the public, with internal contradictions papered over.

Also, with the plethora of Wikipedia axioms and acronyms, just like the Bible, given enough time you can find any maxim to support your position. And unless you're familiar with the Wikipedia jargon, it is very easy to be overwhelmed and feel marginalised.

I do feel that you can assert that something is being discussed out there, without claiming that thing being discussed is in fact true. There's an exception in court to the hearsay rule based on this notion. But the subtlety escapes Wikipedia.

So, Wikipedia, I'll leave you to it. Scratch one person, me, who might have otherwise been a more motivated editor. But I'll maintain my login, at least I'll be free of those appeals for donations.