Gazzster

G'day! I joined Wikipedia in 2006. By my salutation, you might gather I'm an Aussie. If you do, you would be correct! I have the happiness of living in the greatest nation on earth! Leaving patriotism aside, I'm interested in lots of articles. I'm pretty eclectic in my tastes, but I hover around a lot over articles to do with dinosaurs, history, philosophy and spirituality. In general I have a lot of fun; I enjoy the talk pages the most. I enjoy a good discussion, and, I admit it, the odd heated argument too! If you'd like to read on, I'll share

My Philosophy of Wikipedia

I'd encourage anyone, especially newbies, to look at two particular articles, if they haven't already: Criticism of Wikipedia and Wikipedia:lamest edit wars. The last is the lighter side of the Wiki experience. Don't take it too seriously! It is a hobby. If you want to find truth, Wikipedia is a somewhat blunt instrument. You'd be better off going to university or your city library. Still blunter for preaching truth to the world. Knowledge here is a free market governed by a bunch of amateurs with their agendas, ignorances and quirks. The first article is about Wikipedia taking itself seriously. It's a bit scary. But I'll let you read it for yourself.

Why am I here then? Well, after two years here I reached a point where I got cynical and disillusioned about the whole thing. And I announced to my fellow Wikieditors that I was giving it up! But then I thought, 'mate, why are you taking this so seriously? Why are you letting a bunch of frustrating experiences and dickhead editors spoil your enjoyment?' So now this is my philosophy:

Its only an online encyclopedia

The Simpsons Classification of Wikieditors

I believe all human beings in the world can be classified according to the characters in The Simpsons. Contributors to Wikipedia are no exception. If you understand that, your Wiki experience will be the more rewarding. If I might explain:

1. Homer Homer is the editor who really has no idea what he is talking about but feels his contribution needs to be heard. And he can become quite pig-headed about his ignorance. Offer him a reference for what you are saying. If he persists, ignore him.
2. Marge Marge is the one who is conscientious, but would prefer not to commit herself and take a side. She is the one who will offer to be a peacebroker and reminds us to be polite. She might be worth listening to, but if she is becoming sanctimonious, tell her, or ignore her.
3. Bart Bart is the vandal, the troublemaker. He loves seeing sparks fly. Tell him he's being a jerk, and wait for Marge to remind you, 'no personal attacks!' Or you might want to join the fun!
4. Lisa Lisa will gush lyrical and produce all the references you could possibly need. She knows all the editing rules and can quote you verse, line and chapter. Boringly correct. If only she would let her hair down and have a little fun.
5. Grandpa Kinda self-explanatory.
6. Burns Burns is the editor with the 'slash and burn' philosophy of editing. Discussion on the talk page is a hindrance to his mission of purging all articles of lower class buffoonery. He still thinks 'gay' means happy and uses a dial telephone. Thinks Mugabe is a hippie.
7. Lenny and Karl Only one brain between them. Never seen apart.
8. Barny Thankfully rare. Never seen except when pissed. Strangely eloquent sometimes.
9. Apu Apu will sell you his knowledge as the very best. But if you look at the label closely, you will see it has been marked up, and the expiry date has passed.
10. Ralph Again, self-explanatory.
11. Gil Clueless and spineless
12. Jimbo Yes, that doesn't need much explanation either.
13. Cookie Kwan 'Stay off the West side!' Woe be to you if you dare to step in her territory. Serious ownership issues.
14. Disco Stu Lives in his own world, seen through a pair of retro shades he has never taken off. Leave him be. He's happy.

And doubtless you could think of more. Add them on, for a bit of fun!

Administrators

Admins are not God! Painful as that may be for some of them to hear, they are human. It is written, 'put not your trust in princes'.

POV

'A witch! A witch!' they cry as they point their finger at you, and curse you with that dreaded word, POV.

Of course you've got a friggin' point of view. So do the finger pointers. If they didn't they wouldn't be waggin' 'em in the first place! So has everyone here and everyone on the planet. There is no such thing as politically, culturally, ethically neutral writing. Just doesn't exist. No-one writes a shopping list without a POV. The important question is, is your point of view, is their point of view, worth considering? Is it valid? Ah, this is where I do enjoy Wiki discussions. I often learn about another point of view, and sometimes I have to reappraise my own. And that is so cool. Its called growing. If your point of view remains static for your whole life, you're not growing.

Having said that, of course some points of view are utter crap: such as regarding the holocaust as a fabrication, the worship of Queen Elizabeth II, and fear of freemasons, all of which you will find here. In fact, you can find just about any point of view that favoured and fevered minds alike have embraced. Have your facts straight and be open to anything reasonable. And if anyone screams at you, pointing the finger, like Donald Sutherland in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, scream back at them!

And finally

Remember, it's your experience. Have fun. When you're not havin' fun, you're taking it too seriously. Cheers!

Hello Gazzter , have you seen the Australian Republican movement Face book site ? I would like to post your last post on the Wikipedia Australia Act 1986 Discussion page . ( ? ) Lejon