User:My Alt Account

This is an account I created to edit articles I'm embarrassed to be reading or editing. If you're wondering about an edit I made, it might help you to know that I think it's quixotic and possibly plain stupid for me to be attempting to improve that article in the first place. And I might feel dirty for even stepping into the discussion.

Why I have an alt account

My other account (nobody important, BTW) mostly edits articles concerning science, history, technology, etc. I've avoided touching e.g. political articles because I find them to be a cesspool of acrimony, dishonesty, and sanctimonious POV-pushing on both sides. Now, politics makes MOST people unreasonable, so I'm reluctant to poison my edit history with hints of my own stupid ideas, since it tends to only make you enemies, and it's frankly maybe not even worth it since it's so hard to improve the quality and factualness of a disputed article due to the amount of warring and POV-pushing taking place.

No intention to abuse

My two accounts will never edit the same article, and I've taken the necessary steps to ensure that if a checkuser is ever performed on my two accounts, it will definitely reveal that the same person is behind them. Therefore, even if I DO get the temptation to engage in sockpuppetry to bolster my opinions (and I won't), I'll always know that this deterrent is present.

Opinion about opinions

Several of the ideology-soaked articles about people, places, and events have proven to me that Wikipedia has a fundamental deficiency that will probably never be remedied. The current policies mitigate the problem to some degree, but the system can always be gamed, and people of all political persuasions are hopelessly irrational and combative (including me) when it comes to politics. Therefore, any disputed article about politics will always contain misleading, weaselly errors of comission and omission by AT LEAST ONE of the factions involved.

Worse, contrary to what people would prefer to believe, even extremely intelligent, knowledgable, well-read people are capable of monumental feats of self-delusion. There are some extremely diligent, well-meaning, BRILLIANT editors who are absolutely shitting on articles with their masterfully defended delusions. In many cases, such luminaries grace both sides. Remember, in any dispute as to facts, at least one side is wrong, so there are a lot of very smart, well-meaning, dead-wrong people out there. And you know what's worse? Smart, ill-meaning people who think any tactics are justifiable in the name of their cause. Many of us become like this temporarily when we're mad.

The only thing that mitigates Wikipedia's deficiency here is the fact that mainstream outlets are often little better, and sometimes they're even worse. Plus, with wikipedia, a truly diligent reader at least has the possibility of seeing how the article's current form came to be. They can judge for themselves whether it's a bunch of BS or not. With traditional outlets of info, this is not possible.

I admit that my own opinion may be almost as stupid as yours

Yeah, we all think we're on the side of the angels. We all slip sometimes because we know we're right, so our views deserve special consideration. When employed by our opponents, a tactic is dodgy and unfair; when employed by us, it is righteous and necessary. My referenced source is better than your referenced source. My way of doing things is a million times better than your way. My uncle can beat up your uncle.

No, seriously

I'm not a relativist. As I said before, I believe that at least one side of any factual dispute is WRONG. I've been on the dead-wrong side before. So have you. It doesn't matter how smart or well-read you are; we're all guilty. In an ideal world, it might be possible for a reader to determine which side is the wrong side. Reconciliation is not always possible or even desirable. Ignoring the debate entirely doesn't always make things better, except maybe insofar as it prevents people from wasting their time on the whole stupid debate...