User:Wetman

Genuine history is as unclear as the motivation of strangers, and often has little immediate relevance to current events. Popular history is crystal clear and full of implied prophecies and other vividly direct relations to modern times.

—Wetman, at Crusades (reverted, by Adam Bishop)

Wikipedia is a game. It is an entertainment, played in moves, according to rules, towards a goal.

1. "Each move must increase an entry's accuracy, transparency, selective completeness and weighted balance, using vision and appropriate wit."
2. "Avoid unnecessary interference."
3. "Leave your personal agenda on the porch."

So simple. The rest is mostly technique, minimal decorum and detail.

The West Dakota Prize

Knowing that all legend has a context, that legend arises out of some specific history and is often exemplified in a quotable text, and noticing that the phrase "legend states..." is virtually always followed by vague inaccuracies and even invented nonsense, I elected in August 2004 to award the West Dakota Prizes. A quick search revealed twenty entries that were all awarded the following notice on their talk page:

This entry has won the West Dakota Prize for successfully employing the expression "legend states" in a complete sentence.

The prizes (seventeen) were awarded again in March 2005.

Many Christianists are disbelieving when they first hear that virtually every European or Near Eastern basilica or cathedral founded before 600 CE occupies the consecrated site of a pagan temple of one kind or another. Church crypts from Rome to Monte Gargano to Toulouse are mithraea, swept scrupulously clean of all identifiable details, but still recognizable by their characteristic layouts. But in Cholula, Mexico (at right), the Catholic Church really does seem to have bitten off more than it can chew...

NPOV: a neutral point-of-view

Recently a User removed the structural and literary text concerning the Book of Daniel: "which would be parables save for their miraculous content" as offending his "NPOV," saying ""parable" strongly suggests fiction." It cannot be strongly enough stressed, especially since "NPOV" is being invoked, that Wikipedia does not testify to the truth of any religion's books of scripture. Wikipedia treats all texts as documents. Wikipedia reports on the history and language and content and social/intellectual background of texts and documents, and attempts to describe the intentions and points-of-view expressed in them. Wikipedia also reports the range of mainstream interpretations of texts. But Wikipedia does not stand witness for miracles, nor, indeed, does it even decry superstitions.

"Considered by many"

This appalling phrase, a flag identifying self-delusion or worse, appears 383 times in Wikipedia (March 28, 2005), invariably identifying a shortcut avoiding thought or a cheap prop meant to bolster weak personal opinion. Search it yourself, if you hesitate, and scan the contexts— many of them harmless expressions of factual insecurity, to be sure. But, when "considered by many" appears under the fingers while you are writing, it is not enough merely to edit it away: the thought itself is suspect.

My name is Wetman and I'm a Wikipediholic... I arrived 19:44, 4 Sep 2003 with an edit at Aquarium. I logged in as Wetman because that's my handle at various aquarium bulletin boards. I maintain a website, The Skeptical Aquarist at [1] (http://www.skepticalaquarist.com) but my interests are wide-ranging: neo-Darwinism and glaciations and plate tectonics; and Minoan culture and Greek mythology, parts of the history of design (Baroque) and New York City (Upper West Side, Central Park). The transmission of Classical culture and English country houses and archaeology... The history of daily life interests me more than battles, folklore more than religion, cult history more than philosophy; Popes as European princes and patrons are more interesting to me than minutiae of theology, all suppressed texts have special charms for me I'm utterly secularist, a humanist, a realist, a third-generation Stoic Epicurean. I derive enough poetry out of Scientific American not to ever read verse, except for what I can glean in poetry by reading between the lines. Similarly I avoid fiction, but I love Tolkien... I read Marcus Aurelius from time to time, or Hydriotaphia, Urn Burial... I tend to read Apocrypha more than straight Bible books, but the evolution and intellectual politics of the establishment of a canon are more enlightening than any mere content. Not as enlightening as mythology, paleontology, archaeology, though.

I subscribe to Natural History and Scientific American. I went to Harvard, but you'd never know it: I'm surely not still running on the education I received back then.

Stuff I mostly did: Anacharsis, Apicius, Appositive, Art Nouveau, Baroque, Destiny, Pope Innocent X, Legend, Orion (mythology), Puck (mythology), Skull (mythology) (briefly listed at Votes for Deletion!), State fossil, Trevi Fountain, Truffle, Tully Monster, Unam sanctam, Union Station (Washington, DC), Vicar, Wardian case, Weaving (mythology), Woodwose...

An archaic ceramic daidala of Athena Glaukopis ("owl-faced" Athena) in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens, was used as the mascot for the 2004 Olympic Games. The image's phallic head is not unique, but passed without comment during the Games. For the 2004 Olympics, the image was identified as a "doll" in the heavily Greek Orthodox public culture of the modern nation— then paired with Phoebus Apollo as brother and sister!! See entry Athena and Phevos

History and context.

Every subject has a history. Every subject. Without setting it into its history, a subject like heresy flounders in POV. Similarly Wikipedia's entry at Aryan makes no sense without the historical background for an idea that is just as locked within its own history as, say, Manifest Destiny (ca 1840s) Volkerwanderung (ca 1860 - 1880) . Just imagine an entry on Apartheid without dates, places, authors, politics. Heresy is similar: it has no objective reality. Heresy is where the historical evolution of theology meets current political requirements for uniformity.

As for context, most opening paragraphs need to set the entry subject within its context at the outset: Even "In theology..." may not always suffice. How can a good entry for Papal Infallibility not begin: "In Roman Catholic dogma..." This is merely logic, not POV.

"Religion" and "Church" Only a child says, "I belong to the Such-and-so religion." There are many children at Wikipedia, but we must not be bullied by them. Every entry describing a Church should have a disambiguating preamble, all with the same wording to preserve us from squabbles, along these lines, as if for Fooism:

This article combines [or separates] material about the rites and doctrines of Fooism with [or from] the historical institution known the Holy Foo Church. Fooism is a religion: its rites are studied much as mythology is studied, its doctrine is studied in contexts that include theology and philosophy. The Holy Foo Church is a human institution, which is studied much as institutions like monarchy or capitalism are studied. The history of the doctrine as it developed and the history of the institutions of the Church are noticed separately

Such a preamble provides leeway for entries that combine Religion with Church. And for those that separate them. The whole subject came up when a joker User:Snowspinner listed Roman Catholic Church at Votes for Deletion. A firecracker in the henhouse! He must have been amused by the trouble that ensued!

Topics. A sensible user tends to depend on an encyclopedia for Edict of Fontainebleau and come away satisfied, and to be forever disappointed in the lack of depth at History of France or Religion. So I tend to write on small topics, because the big topics are too hard to grasp in wikiform, it seems to me.

About lists. Two kinds of lists are useful, complete lists and weighted lists. (The others are fun and keep the kids from drawing on the walls.) A complete list: List of Gioacchino Rossini's operas must list all his operas. It should begin with a disclaimer sentence, such as: "This list contains only those operas that were mounted in productions. It includes major re-writes but does not claim to include every minor adjustment." A weighted list: Rossini's most famous operas. Such a list is useless if it omits William Tell simply by oversight. A useless list: Rossini operas that come to mind without opening a book.

Wit and neutrality: oil and vinegar? In subjects that are neither somber nor pious and which are concerned with human actions rather than with natural phenomenon, a little wit, a sense of dry reserve, perhaps some tolerant and skeptical humor, is as necessary as a dash of bitters and crushed mint in a julep. A genuinely neutral point-of-view (as opposed to Wiki:NPOV) does not necessarily forbid a refreshing astringency, though no decent suburban Baptist will allow the truth of this. I do not mean to condone droll remarks about plate tectonics

I do try to avoid the contentious topics of religionism that so disfigure areas of Wikipedia, but render it as true a mirror of contemporary American culture as the lists of manufactured and packaged culture: compare the lengths of Britney Spears and Martin Luther. The cultists label unappealing facts 'offensive,' and awkward interpretations logically based on facts are suppressed as not NPOV... —but I won't rail!

Formatting pages

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

Not all Wikipedia pages need have identical formats, with the first illustration squared top right, though one Mediator is convinced this is a requirement. Some images are neutral in their format possibilities, others not:

1. Images need to face into the page.
2. Vanishing points need to lie on the page.
3. Sources of light in an image need to come from the center of the page.

Ignore these rules if you're a punk genius.

An epigraph such as heads this section is sometimes desirable (though another Mediator removes them to a pedestrian "Quotes" sectiom whenever he finds them), but only if it succinctly embodies part of the essence of the subject. Epigraphs could easily be overdone.

Arabic transliteration T. E. Shaw ("Lawrence of Arabia") was never more of an Arabist than when he remarked, "There are some 'scientific systems' of transliteration, helpful to people who know enough Arabic not to need helping, but a washout for the world. I spell my names anyhow, to show what rot the systems are." This is the very system Arabs use, as an Wikipedia reader can attest, but when expressed by a non-Arab, the result is highly offensive.

Concerning "Paris, France" One reads at Wikipedia: "Charles Perrault was born in Paris, France to a wealthy bourgeois family." In some circles "Paris" just does mean "Paris-France." Paris, Kentucky is widely referred to as "Paris, Kentucky" if it is discussed at all. In my family, some of whom live in Louisville actually, anyone using the expression "Paris-France" hears a murmer of "not Paris, Kentucky" interpolated among his attentive listeners. Thus: "Charles Perrault was born in Paris France not Paris Kentucky to a wealthy bourgeois family."

I hope every reader will make the same mental interpolation whenever they read the words "Paris, France." Thus, though one dare not correct the usage, one may still derive some entertainment.

Concerning '"Controversial"

"Controversial" may be a self-fulfilling adjective and, whenever the reader sees it, should be critically scrutinized:

"Andrew Mellon, the American banker..."

"Andrew Mellon, the controversial American banker..."

Propagandists characteristically employ "Controversial" as a "tar-brush," pejoratively to identify a subject and thus create a perceived atmosphere of controversy, where perhaps none authentically exists:

"Beatrix Potter's creation, Peter Rabbit..."

"Beatrix Potter's controversial creation, Peter Rabbit..."

It should be kept in mind that some quite genuine controversy is nevertheless actually confined to a fanatical fringe element.

Template:Deletiontools m:Don't be a dick is also good advice!

Cults. Cults are identifiable by their characteristic thought-patterns, their self-correcting and adjustable continuing revelations, by the suppression of awkward documents, and above all, by the behavior of their adherents, not by the small number of their fanatics. Is that not true? Religion thrives on ignorance: religionists are incensed to be told that, but see whether the entries where they are firmly in charge aren't innocent of the basics of history. Text and context: they interest me . But I do enjoy the more preposterous saints, the ones with the most translucent relation to the pagan subtext, and I like the deep instincts for forgery and fraud that distinguish all the Scientologies, and their secular offspring Racism and Nationalism— for how their partisans distinguish among them, dissociate themselves from the others and claim priorities, all provide a skeptic's theater.

Wetman.

• Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits I was #74 last I looked, and still rising. Just can't seem to quit...
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages: I'm a part of this wikiProject.
• Wikipedia Mailing List: the behind-the-scenes discussion (http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l)
• The day Wikipedia hits 1,000,000 entries: March 7, 2007.

Useful Remedies:

• Wikipedia:Peer review

See also: User:Wetman/Prehistory of television

Licensing

I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below: Template:DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual