[WikiEN-l] No Ethics, we do what we please, no warring, we always will win

[Thommandel at aol.com]

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 at gmail.com writes:

On  21/04/06, Thommandel at aol.com <Thommandel at 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