OK, Brad, let's see what happens. I went to the big bang, non-standard cosmologies and plasma cosmologies articles and added this:

" The Doppler interpretation of the observed redshift is not without controversy. Non-standard cosmological theories dispute the Doppler assumption of the redshift, claiming instead, that the redshift is caused by intrinsic properties of interactions of light with matter. Supporting this conjecture, observations by W. Tifft show that the redshift has a periodic or quantized aspect which is not consistent with expansion.<ref>ttp://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/Tifft.pdf </ref> Previously, it has also been reported in the Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, by A Sandage as his Centennial Celebration of Hubble's birth, that Hubble himself did not consider redshift as an indicator of expansion, Sandage wrote: "Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. " <ref>http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/1996/sandage_hubble.html</ref> The controversy remains to be resolved. "

It is now around 11:30pm CST, the test has begun. We've listened to the WikiNPOV, What will Wikipedia actually do?

Tommy

In a message dated 4/21/2006 2:51:10 A.M. Central Daylight Time, stevage@gmail.com writes:

On 21/04/06, Thommandel@aol.com Thommandel@aol.com wrote:

Personally, I believe that the comment on the front page stating that

anyone

can edit wikipedia is false advertisement. I did not find that to be the case. What I found was that only copy that is approved by the admin and his helpers will remain in the article.

Is this the only article you've tried editing? If so, it looks like you've been very unlucky. Speaking for myself, I make fairly non-trivial changes to a large number of articles, and almost never hit resistance. And an admin using his status to enforce some particular POV would be a rare occurrence indeed...

There are no ethics in Wikiworld. Ethics to the Wikipedian is whatever we damn well please?

We don't usually talk about ethics, as ethics often refers to motivations, or whether one has properly thought through one's actions and so forth. Instead, we concentrate on actions, and the simple notion of "good faith". If you didn't get much of a response to a question about ethics, it's probably simply because we're not used to discussing Wikipedia in an "ethical" framework.

Now I read about a Wikipedian who done as much as anyone but yet was

banned

forever for reverting an action of a fellow admin. In the real world that

Not forever - the duration simply wasn't specified at the time. In the end it was 48 hours.

would be called Guilty until proven innocent and is in violation of every principle America was founded on. Indeed, we spend trillions of dollars

fighting

Wikipedia is international - America's foundations are totally irrelevant. Also, you're incorrect - no country requires proof beyond reasonable doubt simply to lock someone up overnight.

Again I am not involved as an admin, I am a reader who cannot stand idly by while an article in the Wikipedia is obviously slanted toward the opposing

That's a pity. Sometimes it's better to let that article go, and focus your efforts on the other 900,000 or so articles sorely in need of your help.

view. It is clear to me however, that my quest is futile, Wikipedia is not edited by the people, it is run by the admin, who take data given by the

people

and tell the story their way. I see things going on that are illegal in

the

That's a totally unjustified impression of Wikipedia, and totally inconsistent with my experiences. I've edited around 1000 different pages, and with Wikipedia policy pages aside, I've never seen an admin throw his weight around.

real world. The admins, I suppose, are run by the office, which can take have any suggestions for change, it is far too late for that. But

Wikipedians

really should step back and look at what they are really doing. "We,

here in

Wikiland, do not allow warring, therefore, when it comes to that, take notice that we win, you lose, or else you will be banished forever."

You're seriously exaggerating a lot here. Any community as large and complex as Wikipedia is likely to have a couple of sore spots. But the number of articles that work exactly as the good Wikipedian intended tham massively outnumbers them. See the "random page" link? Hit it. Now go and fix that article!

Steve