User:Beth C.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, I started this page just a couple days ago, thinking I'd stick around. Now I'm not so sure it's worth my time--so much POV here, it'd take all the time in the world and an army of editors that understand the concept of "neutrality" to even attempt making Wikipedia a worthwhile source for anything related to news/politics. Really, don't y'all notice it? And do you think you can rewrite reality just by editing Wikipedia? Isn't it notable that such pages have EXTENDED talk pages (some archived, no less)? Doesn't that make you kinda think MAYBE there's a systemic problem with the editing here?

I'll use Wikipedia for less emotional (rolling eyes) topics, like music or something. Whatever. Too bad Wikipedia is infested with activist editors, because the concept is wonderful--but the end product is pure bollocks. Even some of the admins (or in some cases, ESPECIALLY) show a transparent POV and their edits and "rulings" or "advice" on talk pages show it--not to mention a certain one's repeated vandalism of a highly-trafficked article. It's blatant. I guess most of y'all wouldn't notice it though or would disagree with my assertion, since such edits/rulings fit in with the groupthink. Well, coming from outside your groupthink, I'll beg to differ. And with the arrogant attitude many of you have that Joe Schmo doesn't know jackshit otherwise, your attempts to indoctrinate are laughable. Soviet-style history revisions are sooooo last-century and pathetic. At least I can sleep well at night knowing that no matter what you want Wikipedia to say, facts are facts, and you cannot change them with propaganda.

Do I advocate deleting swaths of material? ABSOLUTELY NOT. But the weasel words ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE, and even the addition or subtraction of one simple word ("most," "very," etc.) can change the entire meaning of a sentence. Of course, you know this, don't you! All I expect is a reasonable balance; if there is stuff on one side, balance it with information from the other where it exists, whether you agree with it or not. Period.

And lest you ask, "well, who the fuck are YOU to demand?"--I will simply respond, nobody. I'm just like anyone else who might like to use Wikipedia on occasion, just like everyone else.

Finally, after looking at some of the user pages on Wikipedia, I've noticed that those who have tirelessly worked to ensure fairness have had their user pages vandalized and have had to vandal-protect them. TYPICAL. And with this screed, I fully expect mine may be vandalized as well. Grow up, kiddies. It demonstrates the weakness of your opinion. To those of you trying to make Wikipedia worth more than a one-sided repository of information, THANK YOU. I just don't have the time to help right all the wrongs here; I have a blog I want to keep up. A blog on which I will be documenting the ridiculous crap I've seen here, at that. A blog on which I rejected a "Congresspedia" blogad because all it took was one look to see it's just another medium on which to trash one's political opponents, like Wikipedia.

So you may see me around, you may not. If you do, rest assured that I will be laughing as I type.

[edit] It's better to be a smartass than a dumbass.

Check your spelling, grammar, and punctuation, people! Grrrr!

[edit] Why I'm here, I think...

OK, here's the deal. Wikipedia makes me crazy, because everything to do with politics in it is riddled with biases. Let's not pretend otherwise; we all know some of the articles are a joke. It's why "certain" blogs (which is where I spend most of my online time) and blog commenters reference Wikipedia incessantly, and others (people like me) scoff at Wikipedia references. As long as my attention is here, I want to try to pick away at these problems. It IS supposed to be an encyclopedia, isn't it?

Yeah, I know all this contradicts my association with Apathetics, but "AAW" is my out if I throw up my hands and say "fuckit."

This user would be a member of the AAW if he could be arsed about it.

Yay, shiny objects!

This user is proud to be an American.

This user is from the State of Alabama.

This user is interested in politics.

This user maintains a blog.

ENTP

This user's MBTI type is ENTP.

your/ you’re

This user thinks that if your grammar is incorrect, you’re in need of help.

its & it's

This user understands the difference between its and it's. So should you.

their / there / they're

This user knows that there, their, and they're are not the same word.

’s	Thi's user know's that not every word that end's with s need's an apostrophe and will remove misused apostrophe's from Wikipedia with extreme prejudice. [sic]