User:Elliott-AtomicInfinity
Proudly never not had an edit reverted for dubious or outright silly reasons.Sadly broke this 16-year streak in 2019 (reversion pending).Back to normal after my latest constructive edit was reverted a month later.- Finally broke this streak in 2020. I had nothing to do with the decision to restore my article and other people have since contributed so I guess it might be for real this time but still
(reversion pending). - Okay, I think it's safe to say that no-one's reverting everything at this point. One had to slip through eventually.
One of the worst parts of WP - and one that's probably incredibly offputting for newcomers - is the number of editors who revert changes without any explanation. In that instant, you immediately wonder why you bother, especially when you're correct (or closer to it than the senior reverting your changes, sometimes with recourse to long, meaningless strings of Meta policies and pages). I'm a published expert on some of the issues on which I write, so I know when I'm being "contradicted" by someone who has no clue. When I get a totally unjustified revert, I just walk away -- sometimes for months or years.
Expanding your horizons & opening your mind
[edit]The problem with researching issues online nowadays - especially through Google, which should never be used for anything remotely controversialsee footnote - is that the results all fall within this extremely narrow ideological window of vaguely right-leaning perspectives on economics and left-leaning perspectives on society. An invariant in the outlets you'll find listed on Google News is a kind of default progressivism or strange (post)modern "centrism": a massive overemphasis on the social dimension (expressed through progressive axioms) and, in most cases, an unenthusiastic support for gentle forms of capitalism or socialism (as long as it jives with globalism and globalisation). Typical of most outlets dealing explicitly with the economy (e.g. Financial Times, The Economist) is a simple inversion of priorities: a focus on the fiscal issues (usually from a capitalistic viewpoint) yet with progressivism in the background. Regardless of putative political orientation, on foreign policy, the mainstream tends to subtly support interventionism, neoconservatism, and the forever wars, albeit with fuzzy semantics and a reluctant, velveteen façade due to the endemic lack of appetite in the West for more foreign adventure.
Perspectives across the broad conglomerate known as the "far left" are not difficult to find. When they aren't already implicit within the extremes of the mainstream news corpus, Google doesn't prevent hard progressive and sometimes even communist/Marxist sources from creeping into everyday searches. To accelerate the process, a quick Google search for "Marxist news" should be instructive as it offers a deep, instant list of hard or extreme left sources without any algorithmic interference to push them out of sight. These, too, frequently fit an archetype: they have the progressive aspect on speed (more closely aligned to Gramscian neo-Marxism than Communist Manifesto Marxism or even Marcusean New Left-ism) and then are hallmarked by their near-total rejection of capitalism and interventionism. Despite the proximal and distal responsibility for hundreds of millions of deaths (more than any other ideology in history), they're still frequently more interesting sources than the narrow-minded, narrow-based "polite society" press.
The real problem is the opposite wing: finding authentic countercultural and alternative perspectives that exist beyond the mainstream (where Google and other tech giants begin to filter rather heavily, thus demonstrating that the new counterculture is traditionalism and conservativism). There's an entire world of, at the very least, thought-provoking ideas, facts, statistics, and opinions out there. The quickest and easiest one-stop introduction (particularly for broadsheet and other intellectual types) to a huge range of excluded perspectives on a huge range of oft-deemphasised topics is the Unz Report, which is guided by the principle of free speech absolutism and has been found by academic surveys of experts to provide the most accurate reporting on multiple fields of academe, including intelligence (wherein it towers over all English-language alternatives, including beloved Wikipedian sources like The Guardian). It possesses the widest range of writers and worldviews I've ever seen in one place, and although the topic coverage is comprehensive, a specific issue is most often written about by a single writer almost at random from many distinct voices (with their own personal editorial lines), which means that a paleoconservative may be challenged by a libertarian perspective out of nowhere (it also has, despite recent migratory influxes from less intellectual sites, the smartest and most knowledgeable regular commenters I've ever seen; I respect the mean intelligence of The Guardian's commenters too, but the discussions under certain Unz articles are closer to academic symposia).
I don't know about you but I like my search results, news articles, and op-eds to be chaotic: written from every conceivable point of view, written by all kinds of different people, and written without a predictable party-line (not to mention written without any fear of being fired or booted off one's platform). Sometimes I like to read dumb or crazy theories merely to expand my understanding of the world around me and of the human condition. I truly believe that only with exposure to all arguments, including those intentionally excluded from "balanced media diet" initiatives (cf. filter bubbles), can we become our best selves: wise, well-rounded people who are confident in our beliefs and opinions because we reached them by carefully considering the alternatives. While I agree with the "media diet" concept and have poured great effort into it, praxis thus far has amounted to an implicit restriction to organs of the centre-left and centre-right (sometimes not even the latter). It should include literally all perspectives. The quandary is that if you don't explore the full spectrum of opinions for yourself, you won't even know what you're potentially missing or dismissing because you don't know the full range of stances and ideas that exist out there in the aether (nor can you truly say you've considered all sides of an issue and chosen your own based on the systematic rejection of alternative hypotheses). Objections to "extreme" opinions, whether the extremity is real or imagined, outside the relatively small Overton window should be countered with information, reason, and direct debate. I know from experience that shutdowns without counterargument only have the commonly-predicted effect of leading people to assume they're not only correct but persecuted for being correct, causing a complete closing off and doubling down.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant but how can you play the role of disinfectant if you don't understand the pathogen? This is why I regularly see default progressives - who've never seriously considered their own position, let alone anyone else's - getting spun around in circles in debates on YouTube and Twitter etc. by opponents who know their strongest arguments and have developed their own novel points. Harsh reality check: if you don't understand at least the basic significance - and, preferably, the widespread downstream effects - of the cytochrome P450 metabolic system, for example, you're going to get stomped in any debate on the role of genetics in ethnoracial disparities. Since a substantial ratio of the data and info that's going to be in play is intentionally made scarce on Google, Wikipedia et al., the only way to argue on their level is to have your own understanding of their sources, arguments, and syntheses (I do this all the time with views with which I disagree vehemently). Hopefully, I've provided you with both new tools to do that and a sense of perspective on why it's so crucial to stop censorship. (N.B. For a start, it's worth reading that earlier-linked intelligence reporting study in its entirety as it shows how incredibly low of an opinion active psychometrics academics have regarding mainstream reporting on their research, indicating that much of what you probably think about IQ, g-factor etc. is complete fallacy. The Unz blogs were the only two of the 26 sources to score positively. The other 24 options included US and European news sources and publicly-funded media, with many "prestigious" centre-left and centre-right organs, further illustrating that there's no real difference between the two when it comes to harsh truths outside the Overton window.)
Unfortunately, WP itself is lousy with censorship. Per esempio, any person who attempts to edit articles pertaining to "Gamergate" with a revised perspective, regardless of the strength of their evidence, are banned. Heck, I've spoken to ethnic and sexual minorities who were banned for suggesting that there wasn't an identity component to Gamergate, for pointing out the existence of the well-known private mailing list from which journalists coordinated their articles and reviews (i.e. evidence of the collusion that has been claimed as the "alternative" non-harassment casus belli), or for saying that "#NotMyShield" was very much a real grassroots campaign in which they themselves participated (after journalists began what might have been the first modern "call them all bigots" defence). All of which is currently, staggeringly unmentioned on WP in spite of the trivial availability of full transcripts leaked from the group (though probably not on Google or any site deemed WP:RS, which is how the staff maintain control of the info flow). It's one of countless examples of WP long ago abandoning any pretence of serious neutrality or civil rational discourse. The power structure of WP is comprised overwhelmingly of staunch, true-believer progressives who devoutly believe in shutting down discussion with thought-terminating cliches. So you won't be able to put any of what you learn into practice here. As in most large institutions, the system here has been moulded into an immortal juggernaut that has, as its co-founder has admitted, become as ideologically slanted as any newspaper or TV station with a centralised editorial line (somehow despite the mass decentralisation WP promised; perhaps it's because there's only approx. a thousand people who still do anything on English WP). The structure has crystallised to become entirely resistant to internal or external attempts at change. That's what happens when one slowly ostracises and scares away (often with WP:Policy) the wrongthinkers and repeatedly promotes one's allies into a tight inner-circle, until they have an anti-fragile clique able to dictate the whole of policy (and, with an institution as big as WP, a large chunk of public perception of reality as a result). Still, at least you'll be a balanced, intelligent, well-read, and worldly human being, right? At the end of the day, when you can't fight the system, devote yourself to self-improvement while you wait for your moment.
Footnote on search engines
[edit]Any search engine is better than Google. Since circa 2013, Google has seen a strictly monotonic decline in the quality of their premier search product, as noticed by millions of people around the world. Recently, even their would-be allies in the Google-promoted press have gotten sick of how bad things are. This article from Mashable and others support the idea that Google has become objectively worse for all (even basic, apolitical) searches due to their overzealous application of AI, excessive assumptions regarding what you want to see, and failure to repel SEO "hackers". The articles suggest that Google is now not only worse than itself ten years ago but now - for the first time, from their perspective - worse than the competition. Sociopolitically, Google's standing and misuse of its near-monopoly power was made clear starting in 2016 with a leaked All-Hands meeting video confirming that they would "use [their] technology to ensure [the 2016 election result] could never happen again" (alongside implications that this would involve manipulation of their search product). Matters have only deteriorated as they've repeatedly, publicly and privately, in speech and deed, affirmed their commitment to promoting default progressivism. Use DuckDuckGo or Brave Search for slightly improved results with less hard filtering (i.e. total exclusion). Right now, however, Yandex.com is, perhaps ironically, the ultimate old school wild west style approach to searching the internet. The Russian company lacks the resources and (at least some of) the will to censor or filter its English offering in a meaningful way along Western ideological lines, so what you get is a compendium of links relevant to your search term according to a basic best-fit algorithm that apes what Google used to provide in the 2000s.
My problems with Wikipedia
[edit]Despite being an active academic in multiple fields, I don't like participating in WP. The more I read about or on WP, the less inclined I am to donate my time.
Remember that WP is just a function of consensus thinkers working with mainstream sources to perpetuate an ivory tower sociopolitical zeitgeist. In the media and academia, "populism" - literally referring to the will of the people - is a dirty word. WP transitively represents the same basic contempt for the people.
Wikipedia is not 'truth,' Wikipedia is 'verifiability' of reliable sources. Hence, if most secondary sources which are taken as reliable happen to repeat a flawed account or description of something, Wikipedia will echo that. If all historians save one say that the sky was green in 1888, our policies require that we write 'the sky was green in 1888' ... As individual editors, we're not in the business of weighing claims, just reporting what reliable sources write.
— an administrator
"reliable" sources
"reliable" sources
"reliable" sources
"reliable" sources
"reliable" sources
"reliable" sources
(Maybe more on my contempt for what WP deems """"""reliable"""""" sources later.)
Several years ago, I was driven away from medical WP when a much less knowledgeable but much more senior user repeatedly reverted my uncontroversial, reference-supported contributions to a scientific subject on which I'm a published expert. When the editor explained his reasoning, I showed him that 50% of the article's content failed according to the same criterion and pegged it for deletion (for safety reasons, not vindictive editing). Despite the inconsistency creating an alarmingly inaccurate view of treatment options for patients, the article's status quo was upheld. Sure, I could've elevated my problem - wasted many hours of real time and weeks of passive involvement - but why should I? I've got better things to do. And besides, the antagonist of my tale was an admin and recognised moderator of medicine on WP. I would've had to take my complaints to the top, or even further, for likely no end result.
To this day, articles pertaining to my main field are woefully inadequate - mired over a decade behind the state of the art - and I'm forced to discourage those affected from reading the articles and professionals from wasting their time trying to improve them.
Here are some more of my favourite quotes about Wikipedia from scholars and editors that explain why the site is such a mess:
Wikipedia is, literally, a game about who can overwhelm the system best (i.e. shout the loudest). The editors are nothing more than petty tyrants who enforce their views using reversions, robot-editing, and appeals to WP:Authority when the weight of actual facts sit against them. An encyclopedia anyone can edit has devolved to exactly what anyone would have expected---an encyclopedia run by the inexpert whose articles seethe with unimpeachable half-truths, hearsay, and garbage.
— a fellow academic
You also have to fight the editors personal biases on Wikipedia. Like something as silly as Steak And BJ Day. For many years the people who enjoy the "holiday" have been trying to get it listed on Wikipedia. People have cited articles on the event. People have told Wikipedia that they themselves celebrate. There has even been petitions to get a listing on March 14th for the day. Unfortunately the mod for March page (who also mods several feminist pages on Wikipedia) shoots it down every time. It's a silly example, but it shows how Wikipedia has no interest in evidence of something. You can cite articles all you want. You can even get first hand testimonies, and it's all up to the biases of mod in charge of that particular page. Nothing else matters.
— an ex-editor