Ontological distinction - Revision history

Jukeboksi: de-linking

2004-09-09T13:41:11Z

de-linking

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:41, 9 September 2004
Line 5:		Line 5:
	[[Operational distinction]] is much simpler and less controversial and does not create or imply any POV. It is possible to say objectively that an [[IP range block]] exists, or that an article is on [[Votes for deletion]], or even that its neutrality is disputed, without necessarily having any particular POV or accepting any particular authority.		[[Operational distinction]] is much simpler and less controversial and does not create or imply any POV. It is possible to say objectively that an [[IP range block]] exists, or that an article is on [[Votes for deletion]], or even that its neutrality is disputed, without necessarily having any particular POV or accepting any particular authority.

	Failing to distinguish ontological distinctions like "who are the [[trolls]]" from operational ones like "what IP numbers have been blocked in the past" is the basis of [[Wikimedia corruption]]. Those '''confusion'''s which serve the interests of [[Bomis]] corporation will be noticed and clarified, while those that do not, will not be.		Failing to distinguish ontological distinctions like "who are the [[trolls]]" from operational ones like "what IP numbers have been blocked in the past" is the basis of [[Wikimedia corruption]]. Those '''confusion'''s which serve the interests of Bomis corporation will be noticed and clarified, while those that do not, will not be.

Jukeboksi: typo

2004-06-29T09:29:39Z

typo

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:29, 29 June 2004
Line 5:		Line 5:
	[[Operational distinction]] is much simpler and less controversial and does not create or imply any POV. It is possible to say objectively that an [[IP range block]] exists, or that an article is on [[Votes for deletion]], or even that its neutrality is disputed, without necessarily having any particular POV or accepting any particular authority.		[[Operational distinction]] is much simpler and less controversial and does not create or imply any POV. It is possible to say objectively that an [[IP range block]] exists, or that an article is on [[Votes for deletion]], or even that its neutrality is disputed, without necessarily having any particular POV or accepting any particular authority.

	~~Failng~~ to distinguish ontological distinctions like "who are the [[trolls]]" from operational ones like "what IP numbers have been blocked in the past" is the basis of [[Wikimedia corruption]]. Those '''confusion'''s which serve the interests of [[Bomis]] corporation will be noticed and clarified, while those that do not, will not be.		Failing to distinguish ontological distinctions like "who are the [[trolls]]" from operational ones like "what IP numbers have been blocked in the past" is the basis of [[Wikimedia corruption]]. Those '''confusion'''s which serve the interests of [[Bomis]] corporation will be noticed and clarified, while those that do not, will not be.

142.177.97.194 at 18:23, 28 June 2004

2004-06-28T18:23:19Z

New page

An '''ontological distinction''' is one so basic as to effectively create a [[POV]] in the person applying it or even just believing in it. For instance to believe that "there is such a thing as a [[troll]]", objectively, creates a strange belief system which seems to be the basis of [[sysop power structure]].

'''Ontological confusion''' is however more commonly observed, and easier to verify. Refusing to distinguish moral from technological or operational authority justifies [[technological escalation]] and [[developer vigilantiism]]. To believe that "a [[sysop]] cannot possibly be a [[vandal]]" creates the [[Sysop Vandal point of view]] in which no matter what the [[sysop power structure]] does, it cannot be [[vandalism]], even if it obviously is, from an unbiased third party point of view, i.e. the [[New Troll point of view]] which has not yet been [[Wikimedia corruption|corrupted]] by [[systemic bias]], i.e. "[[neutral point of view]]".

[[Operational distinction]] is much simpler and less controversial and does not create or imply any POV. It is possible to say objectively that an [[IP range block]] exists, or that an article is on [[Votes for deletion]], or even that its neutrality is disputed, without necessarily having any particular POV or accepting any particular authority.

Failng to distinguish ontological distinctions like "who are the [[trolls]]" from operational ones like "what IP numbers have been blocked in the past" is the basis of [[Wikimedia corruption]]. Those '''confusion'''s which serve the interests of [[Bomis]] corporation will be noticed and clarified, while those that do not, will not be.