User:Poeticbent

This user is a professional artist. This user is happy to help new users. Leave a message here. This user is a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. 1RR This user prefers discussing changes on the talkpage rather than engaging in an edit war. @ This user can be reached by email.

There are similarities between the methodological framework of Wikipedia and that of an earlier chat-room craze from several years ago – both "open formats" relying entirely on input from users hidden from scrutiny, and moderated by admins empowered with the ability to block them. The question is whether it can ever live up to its premise, with such high level of hostility toward the exceedingly small group of writers supplying "content value".^[1] The most damning part of Wikipedia is that, by design, our goal-oriented community is forced to accept otherwise unacceptable revisionist viewpoints, providing that they're verifiable. Partisan groups turn to Wikipedia to endorse their prejudices. Content disputes escalate, with sometimes the worst offenders causing disciplinary sanctions against the not-so-calm voices of reason. Controversial subjects are despoiled with political agendas imposed by self-appointed wardens, often in contempt of policy guidelines. Consequently, many such articles contradict the opinions expressed in leading encyclopaedias and quieten the viewpoints of rational thinkers. Their quasi stability is maintained with one-liners signed by returning monikers. It is particularly heart-rending to observe Gdańsk being battered by geopolitical irredentism, not just Copernicus, Hevelius, as well as the overwhelming majority of articles about the history of conflict. All this is done in the name of equality among anonymous editors some of whom would've never been allowed to contribute anything anywhere else outside of here. By the way, users with confrontational viewpoints are far more resilient than those editors who take interest in developing content. They get amused by adverse reactions to their partisanship, and thrive on real-time Internet game playing with the peculiar quasi-encyclopaedic twist.

The result is such that the interested parties are unable to withdraw without the sense of failure given that some countries and societies are under attack continuously. The illusion of the actual encyclopaedia is the reason why concerned editors are forced to guard some articles permanently. Incidentally this is also why participating in the development of Wikipedia seems so addictive. There's the need to constantly guard ones own good name and check on every single edit related to it, from minute to minute.

There is a positive side to Wikipedia as well. Even though vandalism and bad faith edits resemble doodling in elementary-level textbooks, users who intend to cause damage have to read what they change and so they learn from it even if only by proxy. School children turn to Wikipedia in overwhelming numbers lured by search engine algorithms and self-empowering secrecy surrounding their age and aptitude. Students who choose to contribute, get a chance to work on improving their cognitive skills, regardless of the condition of affected articles.^[2]