User talk:81.220.61.226

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please stop adding the "Vitrual Reality" category to unrelated articles. — coelacan talk — 07:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Monism, for one. Bittorrent. These are just plainly unrelated. Then you've got very very wide interpretations on others, like Internet. I'm not going to revert every single one of the far-fetched ones, but I want you to be aware that most of these sorts of edits will be removed by other editors within a couple of weeks, many within days. You're wasting a lot of time by casting too wide. — coelacan talk — 08:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, as monisme is the philosophical explanation for the paradox of the term "Virtual reality". This is well explained in the Matrix trilogy. Same for P2P software : shared networking is the very evolution of the Internet. Internet who's creator is impersonated in The Matrix by the actor who plays The Architect, did you know that? But you're right, it's quite confusing. I suggest to split the Virtual reality between two version : a technical one, which would reprises the actual page, and a new one, about the philosophical, or metaphysical concept. What do you think? I'm okay to create the new page and fix all the links, even those I didn't make. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.220.61.226 (talk)

Okay, first you have to think realistically about what you want to accomplish. You aren't going to successfully redefine "virtual reality" on Wikipedia, or even widen the term's popular meaning. Even if we didn't have thousands of editors who are revert-happy about anything that seems out of place, you would still be violating WP:NOR and that alone will guarantee the eventual grave of your edits. Second, Wikipedia already has several articles that deal with the more general concept, like external world skepticism, skeptical hypothesis, brain in a vat, and even specifically thematic motifs of the Matrix series#Philosophy. You could be more productive by contributing usefully to these articles, however, adding semi-related categories is not particularly productive. Third, the Internet and Bittorrent are just out. Bittorrent and other p2p has nothing to do with VR, I'm sorry. And even in-Matrix-timeline, the Internet was originally developed by the US military many decades before the machines were created. It wasn't built by the Architect, it was built by Al Gore. =) In any case, belaboring your point with me isn't going to stop other editors from erasing such changes, which they will. If you want to make your case for a controversial edit, make it on the talk page of that specific article, like Talk:Internet. Finally, if you're going to be making this large number of edits, it's probably best if you make an account instead of editing by your IP address. WP:WHY? Click there and see. If you are going to reply to me, please reply on my talk page. Later — coelacan talk — 16:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Who am I? I am an old fish. I am going to call you 226 for the moment. I am not particularly interested in your edits, but I noticed them, saw that they were problematic, and decided to extend you the courtesy of explaining to you why your edits would be reverted. That is all. I'm not here to debate with you and I can't change Wikipedia policy anyway. Before this discussion goes any further, you need to read Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR) and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). These are content policies, and they are set in digital stone. Anything that gets added to Wikipedia that violates these policies will absolutely be deleted. Now I'm going to quote from WP:NOR to show you where the major problem is.
An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:
  • It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
  • It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
You're using VR in a very wide, non-standard way. That's a new definition. But the problem that really caught my eye with your edits is that your categorization constitutes your own analysis, and as such is your own original research. There are plenty of places that you can publish your own research, but Wikipedia is not one of those places.
I know you don't think you're doing much merely by adding categories. But it nevertheless amounts to your own analysis. An example: every day someone shows up at Ted Haggard and adds Category:LGBT people from the United States. Is that accurate? Yes, of course it is, and it's a small change, just the addition of a single category. But it is also an otherwise unpublished analysis, thus original research, thus inappropriate for Wikipedia. We revert it, and the discussion gets brought up again. Your analysis may or may not be accurate, but the problem is that it is your analysis. I am not saying that your opinion counts for nothing, but there's also the matter of WP:NPOV and your opinion doesn't belong at Wikipedia. You can start a blog for free and say whatever you'd like there, though.
Besides the original research issue, let's consider the Internet. It may be that something worth calling VR is already taking place over the internet. But adding the VR category to the Internet article makes no more sense than adding an "Instant Messaging" category or an "E-mail" category. In the other direction, it makes no more sense than adding the VR category to Transmission Control Protocol. The Internet is just a carrier. It is not, itself, VR.
Other editors are already reverting your changes, like I predicted. You need to understand first what Wikipedia is and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not or your edits simply will not be accepted. Later on, 226. — coelacan talk — 17:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
You know what? You're right. I'm new here, you seem to be quite used to this "place" (it seems that I have a better, deeper, understanding of the nature of the Internet, tho), so I'll respect you point and stick to it.However, I insist on making you understand (and other people later) what is my attempt. You can see it as somehow artistic. There are two major ways to be active in this world : the slow one, and the quick one. One would say the congruent and the radical, but let's keep it technical. It's all about efficiency in my agenda. You want your idea to impose itself to others (and not impose it) : display it, shout it, repeat it, communicate. It's all about visibility.
Imagine how much time it would take to me to get in every article and launch for each a debate about the VR argument. Years. I don't have them. Look what I did : you noticed my action, you reacted and we had an interesting argue. I'm sure some of my points have initiated doubt in you.
And you have taken time to explain me how things work around here, initiating a dynamic which avoid me to stand alone for maybe weeks, months... thanks for your time btw.
I don't see the way I act in a negative way, neither yours, I believe that conflict is the most efficient way to solve things, as long as it doesn't degenerate into stubborn war. That's also why I do not see the Internet as a carrier only but as a real new space of mutual emulation. Hence the idea of virtual reality. Btw, you shall notice that I have been very picky in my choices while categorizing, i.e. : in computer graphics, I only selected vector or non-precalculated techniques (like bitmaps or motion captures), because they're more "pure" in technical terms. I think the major conflict comes from lack of sub-categories, as "Virtual reality in fiction", maybe. The problem is always the same : cut the knot or not? I have a political view, with all due respect to the WP, that there's nothing worse than stagnation. Disagree? Sue me ;)
Anyway, thanks again for your advices, I'll think about it. I'm sure we'll have other conflicts in the future. It should be interesting.
I'll think about opening an account, but you can already call me The laughing man (or TLM for short).
Edit : I just created the "Virtual reality in fiction category", which should ease the addings. And seriously, the editing here is BORING.
The Lauging Man, your IP suggests you are near Lyon, France. If you want to work toward a happy ending for your radical ideas, I suggest you begin working with or at least supporting EDRI, FFRI, and FSF Europe as soon as possible. That way whenever the future gets here, it will be built from human freedom instead of government-granted "privilege". Whoever controls the fiber, the protocols, and the crypto, controls the mind. But you already knew that. Anyway I made your new category a subcat of the VR cat. I think that's a good idea to begin working from. Also keep an eye on Citizendium. When it begins, it might solve a lot of the problems that Wikipedia has. Or it might not. But it should be interesting. — coelacan talk — 08:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there's a new scientific center that opened recently in Grenoble, not very far from here. My brother (PhD in Physics, that bastard) might work there one day. So I may get closer to nanotech than I ever dreamed of. I already saw the laser he works with at the LASIM lab, here in Lyon, it's awesome.
Thank for creating the category, I saw it popping when I was redirecting fictional elements. I was about to ask you to do it, lol. I have a slight problem with things like the game The Matrix online, which is on both categories, but I'll consider it.
I really need an account, I guess, will create it. I read what the french lady at the head of WP said about Citizendium. I disagree. It could work perfectly with WP by linking open pages of the WP to expert pages on C. Future will tell.
Cool. Well, I'm going to try to fall asleep before the sun comes up here. I'm going to take your talk page off my watchlist now, so if you want to ask me anything, come over to my talk page and leave a message there; I won't see it here. See you later. — coelacan talk — 09:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)