View source for User:Tolinjr

{{retired}}


THIS EDITOR IS NO LONGER ACTIVE ... HERE ARE SOME THOUGHTS FOR OTHER EDITORS ...

It takes a courageous person to be a ''political moderate'' ... and also a Wikipedia editor.  If you are like me, and actively edit Wikipedia articles (particularly socio-political ones), you will very quickly realize that you are out-numbered by both liberal political operatives and loosely-associated cliques of leftist activists who patrol select pages, looking to repel any input that might detract from their political narrative.  This has occurred to me every time I have attempted to edit a politically-oriented article.  In my experience, trying to bring balance to politically-slanted Wikipedia articles is a brutal process.  Wiki-Mediation is of no help.  The concept of 'editor consensus' that Wikipedia espouses has essentially devolved into group-think and has narrowed editorship to where the vast majority all share the same world-view.  Perhaps worse, in practice, it also acts as a firewall that prevents important alternative perspectives and contributions from being made.      

I can completely understand why many moderate and conservative editors either leave Wikipedia or don't bother to edit potentially contentious articles.  

I continue to admire the idea of the site and respect the fact that it has become such an important resource for so many people.  I want it to achieve its goals of being a 'neutral' and 'impartial' informational resource for the masses ... and the only way for that to happen is for brave people to enter the fray and take part in the process.  Good luck. 

''This User Page has survived several malevolent deletion attempts.''

{{User:UBX/vandalized}}{{User:Ace Class Shadow/vandalized}}{{User:Timeshifter/Userboxes/Unresolved_content_disputes}}{{User:RightCowLeftCoast/Userboxes/WikiLBias}}







'''RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WIKIPEDIA:'''

I have a number of recommendations for Wikipedia, if they desire to be a respected and neutral information resource:

''First,'' you need to clearly understand how socio-politically monolithic your editors really are. You can start by tracking the selection of your userboxes by your editors. I believe that this simple action will enable you to gain a better understanding of the philosophy of your demographic (it might also help to have one or two pro-business/entrepreneur userboxes too). 

''Second,'' you must accept and address the fact that the majority of your socio-economic and political articles are being policed not only by paid political operatives, but also loosely-associated activists, who cling together to repel any editor input that is seen as a threat to their narrative.

''Third,'' the concept of 'editor consensus' that is the operational cornerstone of your site is horrendously flawed.  It may seemingly create a more peaceful editing environment, but the downside of consensus is that it devolves into group-think and hive-mind behavior. It also snuffs-out alternative or contrary perspectives and it leads to frustration, vandalism, and constant edit-warring. Ultimately, those with a different world-view are perniciously rejected ... and ejected (such as my case) ... from the process, which further solidifies your problematic singular mindset.   

''Fourth,'' the mediation process, overlaid by your consensus requirements, is completely useless and should either be modified or removed. Mediation Rule: Prerequisite #5 (Acceptance by a majority of parties) makes it practically impossible for alternative input to survive if challenged editors can shut down mediation by simply opting out of the process, with the net result being that their 'defended' work still stands. Considering this, why would any editor ever accept mediation? 

''Fifth,'' all of the above four issues revolve around the same problem ... the vast majority of your editors are significantly skewed to the left ... philosophically, socially, and politically.  One of the stated goals of Wikipedia is to be 'neutral' and impartial in the presentation of its subject-matter, yet how can this be achieved if its editorship composition, promoted by its consensus and mediation practices, protects a singular world-view? If it truly believes in those stated goals, Wikipedia must make a proactive decision to engage, involve (and at times protect) a broader spectrum of editors.  Wikipedia needs to actively facilitate their input, particularly when it comes to contentious topics. This can be achieved by involving Wikipedia administrators (and/or senior editor volunteers) who are sensitive to the issue and more representative of a broader perspective. Their involvement  could provide balance in conflict situations such as mine. 

Far too often, sincere Wiki-editors fight an onslaught of activist editors who do not share his/her opinion ... and many who support that person anonymously cower in the dark and helplessly watch them take a beating out of fear of similar intimidation or retribution. This is the Wikipedia editor culture as it exists today. 

Wikipedia can do much better than this.

''Wikipedia Editor: Tolinjr''


{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Personal !! Education !! Interests !! Additional Skills
|-
| {{Template:User American}} || {{User osu}} || {{Template:User Runs a Small Business}} || {{User:Jclemens/MAgeneric}}
|-
| {{Template:User All states visited}} || {{user degree/MBA}} || {{User:Btphelps/Userboxes/free_enterprise}}  || {{User:Ryucloud/Blackbelt}}
|- 
| {{User:Vernhart/UBX/countries_visited| 41}} || {{user degree/BA subject|Economics}} || {{User:J.P.Lon/Userboxes/Interest-Economics}} || {{User:BeefJeaunt/UBX/Taekwondo_Federation}} 
|-
| {{User:UBX/INTJ2}} || {{User:Scepia/published_textbook_encyclopedia}} || {{Template:User_Civil_War2}} || {{User:Java7837/userboxing/PADI-Divemaster}} 
|-
| {{User:UBX/Pilot-5}} || {{User:Scepia/published_academic_journal}} || {{User:UBX/architecture}} || {{User:Sarysa/Userboxes/technical diver}} 
|-
| {{User Rotor-5}} || {{user:Blast san/userboxes/User IQ|148}}
|}