David 'DJ' Hedley wrote:
You appear to be claiming that Wikipedia should become
a place to prove a
point. I'm sure theres a page called [[Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to
prove a point]], and by replacing disrupt with use, you get the same
concept. Wikipedia isn't a place for persuading people that your conspiracy
theories are correct, and by "allowing free control to people over their
version of the truth" and improving articles by "their passion to convince
people that they are right" won't improve things at all.
I disagree -- I think all articles should have a point.
First off, who gets to say what is a conspiracy theory and what is fact?
I say let all sides of the story be presented, and let the rating system
show what theories are most popular. You're showing your bias right
here. Wikipedia is kind of a tyranny of the majority right now.
This idea will improve things. Look at it this way -- it's sort of like
a honey trap. If there isn't a place for conspiracy theorists to go,
they will disrupt wikipedia and we will waste time and energy cleaning
up after trolls and grafitti, waging edit wars, etc. Currently, having
your version of the truth fall under an article is a zero-sum game. Only
one text can win. If your truth conflicts with the current article, you
have to erase someone else's text, or else have conflicting text fall
under the same title. It's destructive process at worst, with edit wars,
and at best, it just makes wikipedia a place with contradictory articles.
If I and my people can have a our own article under 'Evolution', then I
don't need to go disrupting the other side's article. I can put my
energy into building and maintaining my side of the story.