User:Rursus/NPOV T

The technophreax freethinking against the too "common-sensy" Wikipedia policies. (In phreax terms the current policies hide informal policies, this twofold policy layering causing a systemic fluctuation that shouldn't be there). My objections aren't to the policies per se, my objections are against their names and their motivations. NOR and NPOV and Citability are necessary and sound balanced emotional cultures, but they are emotional, not founded in intuition nor intellect, and as they are motivated now, the information acquisition is haussing/baissing in a fluctuation of expand/cleanup which according to my intuition exhibits unbalance. A lot of things piss me off here:

undiscriminate {{cleanup}}s, no reason – considered sloppy template littering by me,
undiscriminate {{citation}}s, no reason – considered sloppy template littering by me
people acquiring territories on Wikipedia, while the articles should be considered belonging to humankind (personal experiences from "Vlach" and "Eric of Good Harvests") – considered anti-scientific and anti-open-source by me,

In short, I suspect the current policy formulation misses the point, that the current formulations doesn't protect the system from lowly territoriality and aggressions of a species not yet quite civilized, that the policies should be stepwise transformed into similar but different policies that play the same role as the current ones, but works better and channelises the aggressivity towards creativity better.

My very odd language

The language of this article is odd indeed!!

Emotional policy replacements

Emotional policies are:

Non-Trivia – this policy probably causes conflicts.
Original Research sucks – (note the 3-def ambiguity of that sentence! Natural languages sucks too!!), there's a certain amount of automatic conclusions that can be drawn by any non-stupid human, instead OR is sometimes used indiscriminately
...something about weird cite source valuations...
...something about idiots (flame bait, nana_na^naNAA_NAAA!) requiring citations for the Earth being round...

Some of policy based practices appears like qualified systemic stupidity.

WP:TRIVIA construction error

This policy is constructed to cause conflicts, and may be used to remove material that some single minded person regards being irrelevant, because of that persons internal failings. Negative estimations are not a good base for policies, instead the policies should be constructed based on affirmative estimations, and sorting away then orphaning irrelevantia. You cannot understand what's trivia by estimating (a sort of intuition), in opposition to good style and coherence/intelligibility (either you understood and liked the article or you improve it). The reason is that the feeling is rejective, and rejective feelings may be caused by personal limitations. This policy should be replaced by a coherency criterion that moves irrelevantia to sections where they can function as elements in alternate topics. If they really are irrelevantia, if such things can be perceived, then they will be orphaned somewhere, soon to be removed.

WP:OR construction error

This policy causes conflicts. The reason is that, actually constructing a sentence requires a mental operation - we aren't allowed to copy'n'paste material from other sites - and the many such operation required to construct a text can be regarded as an original research. In practice there is a limit to what is regarded as original research, a reasonable limit, but this limit is the (de facto) policy, not this "original research" stuff. The name of OR is heavily misleading, and the motivation may also deserve attention.

NPOV technostyle analysis

This material is intended to be serious, and is my notes for the principles of running Wikipedia. Not much developed yet. For now see my mad ramblings at User:Rursus/Wikipedianism – it is known that madmen sometimes scream out hidden truths.

Utility dogmata

WPedia shall be optimally usable (usable is here an axiomatic assertment), for as many humans as possible at any one time,
WPedia shall forever (forth in time, back we don't care about) remain so,
there are: true and true when measured upto current knowledge ("twmuck"),
"twmuck" is not identical to true according to current knowledge ("tatck"),
"twmuck" it is a small step from "tatck" towards true,
"twmuck" and "tatck" are unequal, "twmuck" may contain newly verified facts added to "tatck", but it may also lack newly falsified facts that were in "tatck",
we care about "tatck" and "twmuck" (because that is one constant of Homo sapiens),
"twmuck" is more usable than true, because it's level of complication is perfectly fit for integration into current knowledge "tatck", (i.e. we can't let "twmuck" deviate too far from "tatck"),
directing "twmuck" towards true is the job of research and mass media, not WPedia, we don't have the necessary facilities for that,
NPOV maximizes:

the number of readers, and so the usability of WPedia
the number of editors, and so the developmend speed of WPedia

Not enough, all doubted/unverified info must be kept available, to further increase the speed of WPedia, in case it is at least a little likely it will belong to "twmuck" plus "tatck".

Undesired developments

WPedia never reaches "tatck" because of internal deficiencies,
- f.ex. WPedians struggle against each-other for NOR- and NPOV-politics,
- f.ex. information is uncontrollably duplicated and multiplicated when merging activities cannot measure up,
WPedia isn't able to assess the direction of "tatck" towards "twmuck" correctly,
- f.ex. because of external politics,
- f.ex. because of general unintelligibility of current research,
...

Diverse notes

NPOV is not a dogma. The reason for NPOV is to optimize the usability of the Wikipedia for as many humans as possible. Let's imagine a one time T, knowledge, snapshot of Wikipedia,

we call it SnapWPed[T].

Let's also imagine

one Utopian state that Wikipedia perfectly reflects all humankind knowledge at time T: UtopianWPed[T] – in which case the UtopianWPed[T] actually is all humankind knowledge at time T,
one other Utopian state that Wikipedia perfectly tells us the ultimate truth: TrueWPed.

At any one time, the SnapWPed[T] shall be so structured as to:

as effectively as possible allow development towards UtopianWPed[T] as well as
TrueWPed.

This implies the necessity of NPOV (which is necessary for UtopianWPed[T]), but it also implies that:

only falsified hoax-data can be removed from Wikipedia, when articles are cleaned to contain only "verifiable" data ^[1], the unverified data should be kept somewhere else easily accessible,
in most practical cases humankind knowledge is incomplete, fragmentary and incoherent, so that by necessity all opinions must be reflected – thereby cleaning away inopportune and politically incorrect opinions is a very bad thing that opposes the fundamental principles of Wikipedia.

Definitions and explanations

Brain state categories similed

Emotions: like what sets you in a mood, like kissing your beloved, like eating something extraordinarily good, like drinking about as much as you want of any drink you want after being thirsty, like being rejected at a restaurant for no valid reason, like being punished for something you haven't done...

Intuition: you're in a search or in a hunt, getting some sense of "it is this way, but I cannot explain why", also the sense that this is it! ...

Logic:

Emotion	Intuition	Logic
amygdala	old cortex	neocortex
feel, feeling, mood, sympathy, empathy (?)	hunch, hint, estimate, esteem, "gut-feeling"	reason, understand, "get it"

Phreax cant

culture	v.	an aggregation (group) of humans (or other species), interacting mutually more intensely than with outside individuals
haussing/baissing	a.	fluctuating by emotional cultural instability
simile	n.	parable, a sentence trying to explain something by drawing analogies
simile	v.	explain by telling similes