we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All
articles must strive for
verifiable accuracy,
citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on
living persons.
Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.
I am a counter-intelligence trained mind - I look into the layers beneath the
prima facia, the act, the claim. What humans say, and what humans do, are not the same thing - this is the third certainty behind death and taxes.
'I possess no evidence, I hold no evidence other than precisely 'interpretation and opinion' (which does not belong) - however, I can group with others and we provide as recitation, each other - then use that as Wikipedia-compliant authority, in order to declare that as the 'skeptic' viewpoint'. - And that is given equal relevance with fact, truth, observation and direct testing. See
The Tower of Wrong: The Art of the Professional Lie.
By promoting opinion of a
modus tollens,
modus absesns or raising question about a person's sanity or character: ('Are they a killer? We do not know...' that is simply one viewpoint') as being 'the counterview' -
that IS the manufacturing of a claim by Wikipedia. Manufacturing arguments from thin air.
One example can be found here:
Deconstructing the Rhetoric around What Constitutes Pseudoscience. In this example, in the recitations given inside of 'Wikipedia: Pseudoscience', cruxial to our debate we hold even here! In the following example, ZERO actual evidence was provided, and what little evidence was provided, did not back up the claim that was foisted by Wikipedia:
Recitations: 75 – 85
a. In club recitations from 8 specific people and their acolytes or replicated materials: 45 – 50 (all of which replicate or simply restate and circularly reference each other)
b. Contradicting recitations or references (instances where the author does not agree with the entirety of the above definition and is falsely touted as a supporting recitation): 30 – 45
Specious References (not specific to recitation or so general as to be useless fodder and dunnage): 35 – 45
The Wikipedia words sound great but - this can be gamed and exploited - this is what I write about, Ignorance as a result of gaming. This is the essence of any agency-controlled media:
Ultracrepidarian - an expression for someone who insists upon tendering an opinion on things, or even or a single topic they know little or nothing about. A group or media entity who saturates available information with worthless, misinforming, disinforming, mis-sense, nonsense, incoherent or other ignoratio elenchi opinion, passed as in-club recitation authority, in order to obfuscate or squelch the argument surrounding an issue.