I am from Cleveland, Ohio. I am a high school teacher and a former Electronics Technician in the U.S. Navy. I consider myself to be a skeptical and somewhat cynical person. I know that clashes with the Wikipedia guidline, of "Assume Good Faith" I am a graduate student in Public Policy. Some of my areas of interest are:
I am relatively new on Wikipedia, but when I first became aware of it, I was interested in the pages on Black people and ancient Egyptians in particular. The fighting, hostility, name-calling and pure garbage on this page was utterly ridiculous and exceeded any reasonable standards of civility. I thought that eventually things would iron themselves out. I began to participate in articles on these types of topics trying to add something useful. After my recent experience at the Kevin Barrett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, I'm beginning to agree with Deeceevoice (talk·contribs) when she says that Wikipedia is filled with systemic bias. This bias, on the Kevin Barrett page was, in my opinion, a virulent hatred of the very idea that a professor who questions the U.S. official version of 9/11, could by portrayed on Wikipedia in a neutral manner. A particular user, (see Kevin Barrett talk page) insisted on imputing his own personal views onto Barrett, no matter what I did to try to bring balance or neutrality to the intro of article, he was hell bent on the POV statement. I posted a message on the BLP:Noticeboard to ask someone else to come and look at it. Little did I know that the user in question, made his own request to an admin that he knows. At first, I was willing to listen to the admin, but after a while I began to smell a rat when I noticed that they would discuss the article amongst themselves, but my comments went unheeded on the talk page. My contributions were not seriously considered and my sources were summarily disregarded and deleted. I checked the admin's page and saw the message from the user who was edit warring on the page. I felt like they had taken us back to grade school and he had called his big brother to come "beat me up." Now I have a better understanding of comments I have seen on some user's talk pages about administrator abuse of power. I have made a request for an advocate about this issue, because I have not given up on Wikipedia or on the Kevin Barrett article. It is my hope that the article can still be made better by leaving the polemics out of it when there is no substantiation or source for it.
After the cliquish behavior I experienced on the Barrett article, I understand why so many beginning Wikipedians quit soon after beginning to contribute. I am writting my experiences for other new contributors to read, so that perhaps they can learn from my experiences and come to understand the landscape a little better than I did.
The following is a list of violations of Wikipedia policies and principles that I feel were violated on the Kevin Barrett article. These are policies and principles that I will try to ensure that I follow to the letter from now on.
Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The Three Revert Rule forbids the use of reverts in repetitive succession. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond in kind, and do not make personal attacks.
The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question.
Wikipedia works by building consensus
Remember, our motto — and our invitation to the newcomer — is be bold. We have a set of rules and standards and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart those newcomers who take that invitation at face value. It is entirely possible for a newcomer to this site to bring a wealth of experience from other venues, together with ideas and creative energy which, current rules and standards notwithstanding, may further improve our community and end product. It may be that the rules and standards need revising or expanding; some of what the newcomer seems to be doing "wrong" at first may prove to actually improve Wikipedia. Observe for a while and, if necessary, ask what the newcomer is about before defining what he/she is doing as "wrong" or "substandard".
If you do determine, or sincerely believe, a newcomer has made a mistake, such as forgetting to put book titles or the names of ships in italics, or failing to make useful links, try to correct the mistake yourself. Don't slam the newcomer; remember, this is a place where anyone can edit and, in a very real sense, it is therefore each person's responsibility to edit, not to criticize or supervise others.
If you really feel that you must say anything at all to a newcomer about a mistake, do it in a spirit of being helpful. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on their talk page to let them know that they are welcome here, and present your corrections calmly and as the contributor's peer, perhaps also pointing out things they've done that you *like*. If you can't do that, then it is better to say nothing.
Nearly every editor believes that his (or her) position is reasonable; but good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may also be reasonable. However, stubborn insistence on an eccentric position, with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith, is contrary to the spirit of consensus practice. Also, biased editing (using emotionally slanted words) is never acceptable, even if editors engaged in biased editing insist that they are editing in good faith or supporting Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
.svg){kind=small}
