From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is  a Wikipedia user page. This is  not an  encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are  viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and  that the user this page belongs to may have  no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is  located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AntelopeInSearchOfTruth.

Fun Tidbits about AntelopeInSearchOfTruth General Info ∞ This user is  an ageless Immortal. This user is  a Citizen of the World (Terra, ⊕). This user has left the planet Earth 0 times. This user is  male. This user is  a Leo. 龍 This user was born in the year of the Dragon. ag This user identifies as androgynous. Editing Capabilities & Tenets en This user is  a native speaker of English. en-5 This user is  able to contribute with a professional level of English. Logic This user knows the form of Logical argument and  if you're editing Wikipedia, most likely you should too. BIAS This user does his best to avoid Disconfirmation bias and  Confirmation bias. You should too. Beliefs & Interests This user advocates the use of more cowbell. This user is  interested in politics. This user is  interested in law. This user enjoys dancing. This user enjoys bicycling. Run This user is  a recreational runner. This user has completed a 5K. This user has completed a 10K. This user has completed a half marathon. BtVS This user is  a fan of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer TV Series. AtS This user is  a fan of the Angel TV Series. SV This user is  faster than a speeding bullet. firefly This user thinks Firefly is  the greatest television series ever made. This user enjoys playing Magic: The Gathering  and  video games">cvg-2 This user is  an  and  video games">intermediate  and  video games">gamer. This user prefers the Xbox and  the PlayStation 2 to the Gamecube. + This user plays retro games. ~_~ This user is  a definite fan of Anime. SK This user enjoys the works of Stephen King. ASoIaF This user is  reading  and  Fire">A Song of Ice and  Fire and  considers it  a fine example of High Fantasy.

Contents 1 About Me 1.1 Breakdown of Logical Argument form 1.1.1 Application 1.2 Organization Schemes 1.3 A Couple Things that might be helpful 1.4 Are You Incompetent?!? Who Knows?

[edit] About Me

What else? an  Antelope in search of truth, justice, etc.

My main concern is  that content from sources is  presented so that it  says what it  said and  nothing more. it  can be easy to misrepresent such content if it  is selected without an  eye for proper Logical argument form.

I haven't had too much time to fiddle with my page. There's a dump of UserBoxes to your right and  some other things below.

[edit] Breakdown of Logical Argument form

• In logic, an  argument is  an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an  assertion [[1]] called a conclusion, based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises [[2]].

• Some practical synonyms for "conclusion":

1. Claim. (E.G., "You make the claim that....")
2. Point. (E.G., "My point is  that.....")
3. Stance. (E.G., "Bob's stance regarding 'X' is....")

Similarly, if anyone says they believe something to be true, "because of this or  that", that "something" is  their conclusion.

• The reasons that support a conclusion are  referred to in logical terms as "premises". Some practical synonyms for "premise":

1. Grounds. (E.G., "On what grounds do you believe that?")
2. Proof. (E.G., "What proof do you have  that my client was there?")
3. Justification. (E.G., "what is  your justification for leaving early?")

Simply put, the conclusion is  what is  held to be true, and  premises support that truth.

[edit] Application

To be clear, I am  not saying it  is the job of Wikipedians to judge the truth of a given conclusion or  its premises. But if we are  going to present someone's argument/belief/stance regarding a particular subject and they have  supplied premises in support, then we should be present the conclusion and  the premises, if we are  serious about accurately depicting the argument.

We do not judge the truth but we should try to present data accurately so that readers can judge for themselves. Simply put, we show it, we don't try to interpret it.

Submitting just the conclusions of an  argument, bereft the premises, often leads to a inaccurate (sometimes ridiculous) representation of that content that is  not present if it  were viewed at its source.

[edit] Organization Schemes

I'm also big on how articles are  organized. Articles should be easy to read. Sections/sub-sections of an  article should have  internally consistent organization schemes.

[edit] A Couple Things that might be helpful

WP:NPOV - Neutral Point of View

WP:ASR - Avoid Self References.

WP:CITE - Cite Sources

WP:WTA - Words you might want to avoid

WP:V - Verify your sources.

WP:WIN - What Wikipedia is  NOT

WP:WQT - Wikipedia Etiquette

WP:DR - How to resolve disputes; valuable information for when you're not able to make your point and  people are  resorting to personal attacks.  ;)

WP:CON - Consensus

WP:SW - For any editor working on an  article that involves a story that readers might not want ruined.

WP:AGF - Assume Good faith

WP:NPA - NO personal attacks

Uncyclopedia - an  outlet for those overly frustrated people at government desks who insist on vandalizing.  ;)

WP:BARN - Barnstar awards

[ are  You Incompetent?!? Who Knows?">edit] Are You Incompetent?!? Who Knows?

The Universe is  not without irony! Research has apparently indicated that incompetent people are  faced with a perpetuating cycle; the very skills necessary to recognize competence are  absent in those who are  incompetent. They lack the ability to recognize competence in others and  incompetence in themselves. [[3]]

Scary thought, really. The researchers themselves stated the realization that they would probably not be able to tell if they were incompetent in a particular area, given the findings of their study. In any case, it's good justification for continuing to question thyself.  ;)