8 months later: Contention unchanged, and anarchy.wiki edit
8 months later, a friend told me about "wikidragons", and it lead to reading about various types of Wikipedian lifecycles.
Wikipedia isn't failing.
Wikipedia never got off the ground. Wikipedia is a REPORTING site.
If people are saying that 2 + 2 = 5, that's what Wikipedia will report.
Because OP is not allowed, Wikipedia cannot be accurate... unless people are reporting accurate statements.
There IS NO MECHANISM for truth here.
My Original (and unchanged) Reasoning for Leaving Wikipedia edit
I am now here, although since there is still unfinished business here, I will also be active until it shows itself as being unresolvable.
Wikipedia reports about the world, which is statist - a society based on taxation. Taxation is coercive as it is involuntary, and is the core of most of the corruption that exists. Accordingly, Wikipedia consists of biased articles regarding politics and whatever it's influence extends to.
Thus, while Wikipedia and wikipedians aim to have an unbiased site, written from a neutral point of view, this is not maintained, cannot be maintained, nor is it feasible or possible.
Wikipedians merely report about the world, not caring whether we live in a society wherein baseless opinions rule the day, as the business of accurate reporting - not of reality, but of mainstream opinion - takes fundamental precedence for this site. It's not like people casually look to Wikipedia for accurate information or anything. They want to know what the Mainstream Mob thinks!
An example of unsubstantiated opinions being the basis for article reversion is seen with users Iwilsonp and Sjö, on these respective pages: here and here, for the definition of taxation.
"I don't think it's coercion." is not a reason, but an unsubstantiated opinion. Nonetheless, I provided reasoning to explain the inclusion of coercion to "imposition" within the definition of taxation. Iwilsonp has yet to respond, and Sjo is considering it further.
Here is the reasoning that taxation is coercive:
- 1. Using the definition:
"A tax (from the Latin taxo; "rate") is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay, or evasion of or resistance to collection, is punishable by law."
- 2. Imposition is involuntary.
- 3. Iwilsonp's reasoning against attaching coercion to imposition was, "coercion carries a negative connotation of something illegal, however taxation is generally considered a government right."
My response is: Since without taxation, government would not exist, why wouldn't it be considered a government right? I'll explain this further: if government were not funded via the imposition of levies, namely, the involuntary inclusion of a person's money to the government treasury, then the government would no longer be a coercive entity. That taxation is involuntary is precisely why government is government. If taxation were voluntary, it would not be taxation, and government would not be government. It would simply be society and people interacting.
Because the state and government are the same concept, using them will result in circular reasoning, as the respective pages, referring to each other, show. The problem lies with the nature of taxation and government: they do not refer to equals, but rulers and citizens. This doublethink of taxation being a societal necessity corrupts all of society, especially via corporations. The means to correcting the circular reasoning is to call taxation what it is: coercion.
The only thing you need for taxation to be involuntary is that one person who is taxed does not agree to it. This is the case. There are numerous instances of this. I, for instance, do not want to be taxed. I do not want my money taken from me without my consent. However, the money is taken from me, under threat of being sent to jail. If I resist going to jail, I'm threatened with death. This falls squarely into the definition of coercion.
Even as this site disingenuously states it is based on the lack of bias, there is no page on it; the link for "unbiased" goes to "biased", about which there is an inherent bias regarding the moral goodness of the subject:
"Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective, often accompanied by a refusal to consider the possible merits of alternative points of view. People may be biased toward or against an individual, a race, a religion, a social class, a political party, or a species. Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, not having an open mind. Bias can come in many forms and is often considered to be synonymous with prejudice or bigotry.".
Where is the bias?
Here:
"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
Do you hold a neutral stance on the following three topics?
I would hope not. They are immoral, lacking sustainability and coherent applicableness to the receiving party: they are socially incoherent.
I enjoyed using Wikipedia while I remained ignorant of it's underlying corruption, and now I am glad to be aware of it, tossing it aside for it to implode on itself. Goodbye. Shyguy76767 (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I am slightly revising the decision to leave: Wikipedia is used by a great number of people, just like Facebook is, and I see no reason people could not be reasoned with to show the contradictions inherent to Wikipedia's intent, definitions, and actions. Therefore, I will proceed to see if Wikipedians are amicable to such logic. If not, I intend to find or create other avenues that are conducive to logical and reason-based presentation of items, rather than mainstream consensus, which can be false, with no assurance of accordance to reality: what if the mainstream thinks 2 + 2 = 5? Shyguy76767 (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)