Editing Talk:Article hub
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Excellent overall. Our [[Lowest Troll]] has written a marvellous summary of [[trolling]], or at least the sort of [[heroic trolling]] that goes on here. | Excellent overall. Our [[Lowest Troll]] has written a marvellous summary of [[trolling]], or at least the sort of [[heroic trolling]] that goes on here. | ||
Line 12: | Line 9: | ||
-------------- | -------------- | ||
Consider this: all the [[troll]] research on [[Wikimedia]], [[Wikipedia]] and the way Bomis has created [[Wikimedia corruption]] is true. But it would only be considered "opinion" by the [[usurper]]s who set up this situation. In a court of law, every last thing said about Wikimedia here would be proven true, and it could be proven to be "research". But in very few cases would anyone ever get around to such a decision: in general, the difference between "opinion" and "research" is who you trust, i.e. which [[faction]], and if you have a bias towards [[trolls]] and the [[New Troll point of view]] or the [[sysop power structure]] and its invented idea of [[neutral point of view]], which means only "that which does not offend sysops so much that they ban those who challenge it" - in other words, [[systemic bias]] of [[insider culture]]. | Consider this: all the [[troll]] research on [[Wikimedia]], [[Wikipedia]] and the way [[Bomis]] has created [[Wikimedia corruption]] is true. But it would only be considered "opinion" by the [[usurper]]s who set up this situation. In a court of law, every last thing said about Wikimedia here would be proven true, and it could be proven to be "research". But in very few cases would anyone ever get around to such a decision: in general, the difference between "opinion" and "research" is who you trust, i.e. which [[faction]], and if you have a bias towards [[trolls]] and the [[New Troll point of view]] or the [[sysop power structure]] and its invented idea of [[neutral point of view]], which means only "that which does not offend sysops so much that they ban those who challenge it" - in other words, [[systemic bias]] of [[insider culture]]. | ||
Imagine as a [[test case]], the criticism of Bomis going through the [[Research Wiki]] process and coming to the [[Publish Wiki]] so that it would be advice to not patronize [[Bomis Corporation]], because it is suppressing all the [[GFDL corpus access provider|other wikipedias]]. This request to [[Boycott Bomis]] would go somewhere - where? How would it be scored or voted on? What would be the ultimate role of the [[CGO]] in adjudicating the score? | Imagine as a [[test case]], the criticism of [[Bomis]] going through the [[Research Wiki]] process and coming to the [[Publish Wiki]] so that it would be advice to not patronize [[Bomis Corporation]], because it is suppressing all the [[GFDL corpus access provider|other wikipedias]]. This request to [[Boycott Bomis]] would go somewhere - where? How would it be scored or voted on? What would be the ultimate role of the [[CGO]] in adjudicating the score? | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Line 20: | Line 17: | ||
Note: there is no [[ontological distinction]] between research and opinion: research is the opinion of a researcher. And anyone can be a "researcher". Thus, opinions are indistinguishable from other forms of research - except that one could say "facts are research, and analysis is opinion. [[Critical Point of View]] articles that don't even pretend to be [[NPOV|neutral]]. These are part of "research" but clearly marked. They are often drawn from outside text, in the form of [[campaign]]s for and against some entity, such as [[company]], [[product group]], [[product|individual product]], [[area]] ([[country]], [[ecoregion]]) or a piece of [[advertising]] which is clearly promotional. An opinion starts as the lowest-credibility form of research and those who provide it will often be engaged with the [[Lowest Troll]] to determine if the authors or transmitters or republishers are [[funded troll]]s being paid to trash or promote some commercial service. | Note: there is no [[ontological distinction]] between research and opinion: research is the opinion of a researcher. And anyone can be a "researcher". Thus, opinions are indistinguishable from other forms of research - except that one could say "facts are research, and analysis is opinion. [[Critical Point of View]] articles that don't even pretend to be [[NPOV|neutral]]. These are part of "research" but clearly marked. They are often drawn from outside text, in the form of [[campaign]]s for and against some entity, such as [[company]], [[product group]], [[product|individual product]], [[area]] ([[country]], [[ecoregion]]) or a piece of [[advertising]] which is clearly promotional. An opinion starts as the lowest-credibility form of research and those who provide it will often be engaged with the [[Lowest Troll]] to determine if the authors or transmitters or republishers are [[funded troll]]s being paid to trash or promote some commercial service. | ||