The motto of the AIW is conservata veritate, which translates to "with the preserved truth".
This motto reflects the inclusionist desire to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result.
Stidmatt is a data scientist living in the United States. I joined Wikipedia in 2008. I am interested in Politics, History, Geography, Science, Music, among other things. I play the trumpet and piano and am fluent in XHTML and CSS. I do my best to correct errors in the areas of interest. I will add any information I think should be in an article I will add it to do my part and prove Linus's law yet again.
My long term project is translating German village pages and monarchs to English.
I'm not sure what other people will say about this, but I feel like all religion topics should have an automatic silver lock to prevent vandalism and work on making them with more neutral sources to improve their quality. Any comments?
I am going to be frank, honest, and clear with my opinions, I am not going to hide things. If I hurt someone's feelings for showing sources, too bad.
I have been noticing that there are some pages that have been used by far-right Tea Party leaning members of Wikipedia as a way to discredit progressive ideas. The current disputes on the Occupy Wall Street Page are completely fabricated and is being used to further pursue their goals at discrediting the largest movement for social change in the history of the world to keep their power through powerful media. Also, on the old General Motors streetcar conspiracy the people who are denying it are doing so without evidence, and against the accounts of millions of the oldest Americans today, it is damaging t our country and the truth must be told! No matter how inconvenient it is, this is Wikipedia, we exist to tell the truth, not further urban legends.
Wikipedia has been designed to allow a variety of viewpoints and must remain like this. If you find a problem with an article tell us the precise reason why it is NPOV, wrong, or needs to be clarified, and if it isn't done, please plunge forward! Wikipedia on many pages has been designed to give MULTIPLE POINTS OF VIEW. Go onto almost any current Head of State's page and you will find a Criticism section, and if there is a complaint that has been listed somewhere else, put it there! But do not destroy sourced facts if they go against your deeply held religious/political beliefs, if you must do this, Conservapedia is the place for you!
I am a stickler to Wikipedia's Guidelines because if they are followed they could be extremely powerful at protecting this wonderful site from vandalism from members. We need to start deleting members who violate these guidelines on a consistent basis. We're putting ourselves at risk.
As you can see by my User boxes, I am a Utilitarian Unitarian Universalist.
There is a big problem with Vandalism currently on Wikipedia's political articles. This is due to a very weak vandalism system, with many users acting to change articles that go against their personal beliefs. I propose Wikipedia make its policies clear and its punishments clearer, these vandals will not stop until there are clear punishments for them hurting our wiki. The most common type of Vandalism is that of Conservatives keeping potential star articles, like what I mention above, from becoming authoritative and well-written by preventing small edits to make a great article on the real history of what happened by changing articles and destroying our work. This is wrong. I have made this proposal to a complete change in policy to make this more effective. I love Wikipedia. It is the best portal to the Web, and it has a long way to grow. The only way to do this is knock off people who are using Wikipedia to further their political/religious agendas. I don't want people to be deleted. I want every major point of view to be represented. But when people delete facts to further their political/religious agendas things have to change. Until then, I am not going to be able to improve most of the articles I want to improve with 1st hand sources because over the past few months all of my updates which are fully sourced with primary sources have been deleted because they go against the view of this minority.
A user may be deleted only by three Administrator's agreeing.
A user may only be deleted after being nominated by another member of Wikipedia.
The following cases are infringements on Wikipedia's policy and will be deleted after 5 accounts of vandalism of the following types:
Deleting a controversial statement that was sourced with a primary source.
Adding unsourced information on a controversial subject.
Adding information from tertiary sources that are advocacy groups that are not using primary sources on a controversial statement to further belief in a political statement.
Deleting old beliefs of a group to replace with new beliefs, without leaving older beliefs as a record. (common in some religions' pages, should be researched individually by Wikipedians to determine the truth without me sounding like a bigot and losing friends.)
Hopefully this can help!
Long live Wikipedia.
I am creating books to collect information on important topics. You can see a list of my projects here: User:Stidmatt/Books
