User talk:Peter Lim 870
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Peter Lim 870! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! SerChevalerie (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Important Notice
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Doug Weller talk 13:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Doug, Did you receive the message I just sent? Peter Lim 870 (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- No. By the way, if it was email, please don't use email as such discussions should be public if possible. Doug Weller talk 13:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
You might benefit from reading
[edit]WP:NOTNEWS. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
It took me 10 min to figure out how to respond. What's the problem with every administrator at wikipedia. Are you all in a state of war? I just wanted to genuinely contribute. The way you are treating me as if I am a criminal. What wrong did I do? Did I post and obscenities? Did I propagate fake news? Are you all motivated?
I had a genuine question and suddenly the entire wiki admin group panicked. Wow... Peter Lim 870 (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- Most by which I mean probably 99% Wikipedia administrators have never heard of you so that claim is clearly nonsense. Also your claim that you were blocked is also nonsense as anyone even non admins like me can easily see [1]. Provided you are careful to follow our policies and guidelines, especially when editing sensitive areas covered by discretionary sanctions, you're still welcome to contribute anywhere at this time. That does mean you need to make sure any proposals you make are supported by reliable sources. Generally secondary sources and especially not charge sheets and other such primary sources in cases where BLP is involved per WP:BLPPRIMARY. These are the policies and guidelines we all follow, wherever we edit, both new editors and not new ones. Do understand that wikipedia is not and has never been a place for WP:Original research. We are an encyclopaedia that to put it simplistically, summarises what reliable sources say. So while being an "intellectual" is welcome, what is far more important is your ability to find reliable secondary sources. Unfortunately editors who think their own knowledge is more important than finding sources can encounter problems here. But many intellectuals are great contributors especially since they themselves often rely on reliable sources so already know them or know where to find them. Nil Einne (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I'll tell you what's wrong with wikipedia. 👇🏼
1 - I noticed Wiki-Contributors tend to use 3 words a lot RELIABLE POLICIES GUIDELINES This indicates an endemic problem. First, you create an Ecosystem and define what is "right or wrong".
2 - Then a motivated group of like minded contributors and administrators HIJACK the system.
3 - They know the weakness of this system and use it to propagate their version of right / wrong. The method of reliability is "circular referencing" with each other.
4 - That's why everyone is wikipedia is stumped when I asked a simple question. **Charges have been filed in court which gives different picture**. Nobody could explain what is the complication and why this fact needs referencing.
Now some more damning evidence that wikipedia is losing credibility 👇🏼👇🏼
5 - Let me explain how I got involved 👉🏼 A link to Delhi riots was posted on my WhatsApp group and the person lamented bias. I confronted him and scolded him for defacing wikipedia. I stated that wiki is user generated content. *He laughed at me and called me ignorant.* That's how I got involved because I wanted to prove him wrong.
3 - I am from Malaysia too. My two sons study in a British school, and Canadian school. BOTH schools do not accept wikipedia as a reliable source for citations. Now I understand why.
4 - please google search any content. The search never shows wiki in 1st page. That indicates even google has downgraded wikipedia.
YOU PEOPLE HAVE A LOT OF SOUL SEARCHING TO DO. Your ecosystem of Reliable + Policy + Guidelines has been infiltrated by motivated elements and its bringing a lot of disrepute to wikipedia. Peter Lim 870 (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
1 - We require reliable sources because it's the best way to ensure our information is accurate to the best of human knowledge. We are a tertiary source, so it against our purpose to find new knowledge. We are only supposed to accurately convey the information that is already known, as reported in reliable sources. Secondary source who are themselves often summarising the information gathered by those actually doing the research and investigation. This is the way things have worked long before Wikipedia existed. While the crowd sourced aspect of Wikipedia is partly unique, ultimately tertiary sources like encyclopaedia were always supposed to be summarising the information and knowledge that was available in other sources. The way more classical encyclopaedia like Britannica or Encarta worked may have relied more on experts but those experts were supposed to be experts because they knew what information was well supported. If those experts were presenting a view that was in contradiction to the widely accepted view and not making this clear, that would generally be considered a poor encyclopaedia article. This definitely happened then, and indeed it happens now on Wikipedia. We do our best to avoid it but it isn't always possible. It's especially difficult for places like Malaysia and India. In the Malaysia case I assume you know as well as I do that the main stream media is not free. Things may have changed slightly with the brief new government but even then the fact remained The Star was still owned by MCA etc. The newer internet media is more free although even they sometimes faces problems. But because many were explicitly set up to counter the government and mainstream media and many of the journalists etc lean in the same direction and understandable motivation but still one which means they are often far from unbiased. But further as with a lot of modern media and especially internet media, they also face the same financial pressures resulting in clickbaity content etc. India is a little different. The direct government involvement and control is more limited although they do have a lot of influence from their ad spending. But there has recently been a strong surge in "nationalist" media. However for a story like the Delhi riots, it received wide spread press coverage thorough the world. Admittedly as the COVID-19 crisis expanded most of the world also forgot about it. But there is still a great level coverage from the initial days. This means concerns over media problems are far less acute.
2 - From my experience, that's mostly a claim by people who want to spread nonsense here and are unhappy they aren't being allowed to do it. Sorry if that doesn't apply to you, but you've made no real efforts to actual work within our policies and guidelines which we have good reason for, and which as been consistently explained you you. Instead you just keep yelling "fact". This reminds me exactly of people who like to spread nonsense especially pseudoscience who also keep yelling "fact" but then when ask to find one source which discusses this "fact" they are unable to do so. I can claim it's a fact that the Delhi riots were organised by the India government to murdered Muslims, and keep yelling it needs to be included in the article. But without sources, my "fact" is rightfully going to be completely rejected.
3 - We explicitly disallow circular reference here. Anyone who continually cites Wikipedia articles is likely to get in trouble, even blocked if they continue. When we believe an secondary source has just taken the information from Wikipedia, we stop using that source and find one which has not done so. If we can't find one, we don't include the information. It's somewhat true that citogenesis is difficult to combat since most sources don't say they got the information from Wikipedia. But this is a problem in areas like the name of Peaches Geldof or the birthday of some random actor. It's not much of a problem in highly sensitive political disputes since only extremely crap sources that we never allow are getting theor coverage of the issue from Wikipedia. Even if they don't have journalists on the ground, and many top flight media organisations did for the Delhi riots, they get it from other journalists and syndication.
4 - Actually many people explained why already. I'll try one more time. How do I know the charges paint a different picture? You claim it is a fact. How on earth do I know this fact unless some source tells me so? When your children ask you when was Mahathir Mohamed born and you tell them January 1 1930 and they ask you say I just know, it's fact, and they look in a book which says it's "10 July 1925", do you keep telling them that book is wrong. I know, it's fact. Or do you look at that book and other references and realised actually I am wrong. What I thought was a fact is clearly not a fact. Or do you just continue to believe something which you claim is a fact, is a fact, because you're right and it's impossible to prove you wrong? Let's use a different more related example. I'm sure you know of the pastor, the alleged Shia, and the two Christians who disappeared in Malaysia a few years back in highly questionable circumstances. I'm not naming them for WP:BLP reasons. But I personally believe it's clear parts of the Malaysian government were involved given the circumstances. However me yelling 'it's a fact' gets no where, and rightfully so. If I want to change our article, or even convince anyone, instead I should link to sources like the SUHAKAM report and sources which discuss said report. Or before that report (since one doesn't exist yet anyway), I can provided references to other sources which discuss the disappearance. If this is a personal thing, I could tell people the reasons and evidence based on my own research and people may come to their own conclusion. For Wikipedia, we have to be careful not to engage in original research for reasons I already mentioned. Therefore while we may present evidence, we have to be careful it is supported by reliable sources. We have to be careful not to advance a conclusion either explicitly or implicitly unless it is supported by said sources. This is quite a difficult balance and we often get it wrong. But we get it right by discussion among editors. Not by one editor yelling "fact" and ignoring all concerns. Note that in this particular case, while I personally believe it's a fact I'm doubtful we should say so, as indeed we don't at the moment. (Although as with a lot of Malaysian articles, non of the 2 we have are that great.) Instead we rightfully just present what SUHAKAM etc have said. In fact although again neither article is that good, we don't even directly say anything is a contradiction. A lot of the time it isn't necessary. If the police say we don't know what happened to the person, and SUHAKAM says, members of the police were involved, it's not necessary to say there's a contradiction. It's obvious. If you would find secondary sources discussing this charge sheet, maybe we could present aspects of it in our article. I don't know since you haven't done so.
5 - I don't understand what you are trying to say. If you want to improve Wikipedia, as I said at the moment you are still welcome to help us change content. Yet you've failed to make any real efforts to do so. Frankly I've I'm blunt all you've proven so far that people who are too lazy to actually do any work like find sources and instead just keep yelling "fact", don't get to change content. That's a good thing.
version 2 of 3 - Many schools have never liked encyclopaedias and other tertiary as sources. They can be used for certain things, but they need to be used as care. Of course there are certain issues surrounding wikipedia which cause additional concern. But actually the issue which causes the most concern for a lot of people is the crowd sourcing aspect. In other words, the fact that some random dude with 4 edits could change an article to say something which may not be true. None of this is particularly new in any case. The same concerns were raised in 2005 back when I assume your children either weren't born or weren't in school yet.
version 2 of 4 - For a lot of people, a lot of the time a Google search finds Wikipedia as one of the top results. E.g. mahathir mohamad, anwar ibrahim, malaysia, penang free school, delhi riots top result for me both logged into a Google account and in private mode, is Wikipedia. movement control order is the only odd one out but that's because it has a snippet at the top derived from and linking to wikipedia, and a snippet to the right which also links to wikipedia. Of course Google is known to show different results to different editors depending on a lot of things so I can't discount your experience. How common it is, I don't know but as I said, anecdotally there are definitely many people who still get wikipedia as a top result. And Wikipedia is a common source for snippets especially ones to the right. These examples demonstrate a good reason why we never allow original research. You made a claim which you thought was true. However there's actually very little evidence for it. Ultimately Google's opinion of wikipedia is beside the point anyway.
I salute and deeply appreciate your effort with your explanation and I get your point. But I would simplify.
1 - Policy / reliable / fact / guidelines are very relative terms.
2 - More than all the above, we need the topic to be current.
3 - Example, a simple statement like "On June 1st , Police filed charge sheet in a court that painted a different picture. However these charges have not been established in the court."
4 - This kind of statement will give a true picture of the current affairs. Reluctance to state it is clearly depicting a motivated intent.
5 - Give me 10,000 USD. I'll go to Delhi and get you a video recording of an eye witness who will say anything. I am not joking. I was doing research and I saw video on you tube where the person is alleging that false statements were recorded using money. (In Malaysian context, Annuar Ibrahim sodomy case is best example). The Mohd Adib tragic death and the subsequent fiasco of inquest is all too well known. "Witnesses / Reliability" is up for sale nowadays.
6 - You may keep dramatising the wiki eco system but I feel the system is caught up in a web. Anyone who has been long enough (let's say 15 years) can easily create an ecosystem of like minded people and rig wikipedia.
7 - I have done quite a lot of research in this matter and Delhi Riots is just a link on the chain of events. I have seen many videos of speeches being made. The article has a clear leftist bias and is 100% motivated. I am more convinced now that the words reliable / policy/ guidelines are just a garb to hide motivated content. Peter Lim 870 (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree- Wikipedia has become a joke
[edit]I agree with you, the Delhi riot page on wikipedia has proven how biased wikipedia can become. It will be long before wikipedia will become a joke if it goes on like this.