User talk:A1candidate/The greatest flaws of Wikipedia

This is a great read. Have you considered publicizing this article? It seems very important. IsaacD (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but no I do not wish to publicize this on my own. Having said that, you're of course free to share it under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0, just like any other article on Wikipedia -A1candidate (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in the discussions on the Gavin Menzies Talk Page. It occurred to me afterwards that it is better that articles such as this should not have a neutral tone, if it did it would tend to obscure the general bias. The lack of neutral tone is actually quite helpful to the reader as a warning. The same goes for many articles in wikipedia. Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question, you state that people are leaving America in droves, do you have anything to back that up? I know the rate of people renouncing their citizenship has increased over the past few years but a couple thousand people leaving vs. 3 million a year being born in/coming to, etc. isn't really droves. Even when considering the ~6 million expats, some of whom have been expats for decades, it still isn't a fair comparison to the decline in active editors. Just curious is all.

And to address the issues you've raised. They're one reason why I try my best to avoid "debates" and I don't worry much if an edit will be controversial. I just use my best judgement, be BOLD, and if someone wants to change it, so be it...unless of course it deals with statements of fact which are supported by ample evidence. Coinmanj (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The scenario described in the essay is a purely hypothetical one. I realized that I have not stated this clearly, so thank you for pointing it out.

That is indeed a very logical way to about editing, but surprisingly, I have come across a number of articles where people simply ignored every type of evidence just because they are in the overwhelming majority. Who is there to oppose them? -A1candidate (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Truly an interesting observation & one that I'm inclined to agree with from my experience thus far. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1 on this being a great read. Thanks for your contributions --Jeroen De Dauw (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I second Jeroen's +1, and offer as well a big warm hug of gratitude, for saying what needs to be said. (It's who-you-know, and how well you *play* Wiki that rules content here.) petrarchan47 t c 01:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered the possibility that people are leaving Wikipedia in droves because the maintenance of an encyclopedia is substantially less labor-intensive than the creation of an encyclopedia? I suspect that the number of active editors is correlated more closely to the rate of growth of Wikipedia, not to the size of Wikipedia. 0nlyth3truth (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]