User:The sunder king/Essay

The Essay on this page was posted once on the wikipedia helpdesk by a trolling editor, I am keeping this essay here to preserve it in the history of wikipedia. Yes it looks trolling and critizes wikipedia...however it has intelligent meaning about it and could be useful

The following letter is inspired by a quote from Thomas Paine: "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." Without going into all the gory details, let's just say that Wikipedia thinks it would be a great idea to emphasize the negative in our lives instead of accentuating the positive. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed. It is common knowledge that the facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely accepted, notion that honesty and responsibility have no cash value and are therefore worthless. Wikipedia says that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior. That's its unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely lackluster and unprincipled lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Wikipedia's peons. Wikipedia wants to ruin my entire day. It gets better: It believes that it is a martyr for freedom and a victim of commercialism. I guess no one's ever told it that it exhibits an air of superiority. You realize, of course, that that's really just a defense mechanism to cover up its obvious inferiority. - - Wikipedia's secret passion is to throw us into a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. For shame! If you can go more than a minute without hearing Wikipedia talk about antagonism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial. Giving Wikipedia the means to take us over the edge of the abyss of sesquipedalianism is like supplying the gun to your own robber. But the problems with its opuscula don't end there. Wikipedia is absolutely determined to believe that two wrongs make a right, and it's not about to let facts or reason get in its way. - - Considering that we're all in this mess together, I offer that by brainwashing its flunkies with unilateralism, Wikipedia makes them easy to lead, easy to program, and easy to enslave. I'm not writing this letter for your entertainment. I'm not even writing it for your education. I'm writing it for our very survival. Ancient Greek dramatists discerned a peculiar virtue in being tragic. Wikipedia would do well to realize that they never discerned any virtue in being prolix. - - Longiloquent traitors serve as the priests in Wikipedia's cult of oppressive, short-sighted post-structuralism. These "priests" spend their days basking in Wikipedia's reflected glory, pausing only when Wikipedia instructs them to create anomie. What could be more asinine? We should be able to look into our own souls for the answer. If we do, I suspect we'll find that its memoirs will have consequences -- very serious consequences. And we ought to begin doing something about that. This is not the same as saying that I could do without Wikipedia's throat-cutting rampages, although that, too, is true. Wikipedia says that it has a duty to conceal the facts and lie to the rest of us, under oath if necessary, perjuring itself to help disseminate the True Faith of cannibalism. Should we care that large numbers of the worst classes of snooty beatniks there are actually believe such rancorous things? Should we try to convince them otherwise? I don't think so. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it craves more power. I say we should give Wikipedia more power -- preferably, 10,000 volts of it. - - It is naive to think that Wikipedia wouldn't prosecute, sentence, and label people as silly, nettlesome spielers without the benefit of any evidence whatsoever if it got the chance. That said, let me continue. Now, more than ever, we must see through the haze of chauvinism. Life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is Wikipedia so compelled to complain about situations over which it has no control? This is an important question because given the amount of misinformation that Wikipedia is circulating, I must indeed point out that I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with it. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I comment on Wikipedia's obloquies. - - If there's a rule, and Wikipedia keeps making exceptions to that rule, then what good is the rule? I mean, Wikipedia wants to be the one who determines what information we have access to. Yet it is also a big proponent of a particularly humorless form of factionalism. Do you see something wrong with that picture? What I see is that Wikipedia has stated that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization". That's just pure narcissism. Well, in Wikipedia's case, it might be pure ignorance, seeing that Wikipedia's deputies have an almost identical mentality, as if they all had been cloned from a single lackadaisical prototype. I'll stand by that controversial statement and even assume that most readers who bring their own real-life experience will agree with it. At a bare minimum, our national media is controlled by unprofessional litterbugs. That's why you probably haven't heard that Wikipedia is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to its viewpoints. I'll go over that again: Wikipedia should get off its pedestal and walk a day in our shoes. That's the sort of statement that some people maintain is bleeding-heart, but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made, because if you looked up "brainless" in the dictionary, you'd probably see Wikipedia's logo. - - By refusing to act, by refusing to reach out for things with permanence, things beyond wealth and comfort and pleasure, things that have real meaning, we are giving Wikipedia the power to use cheap, intemperate propaganda to arouse the passions of high-handed, feral dunces of one sort or another. So let me make it clear that Wikipedia says that newspapers should report only on items it agrees with. You know, it can lie as much as it wants but it can't change the facts. If it could, it'd honestly prevent anyone from hearing that it wants to divert our attention from serious issues. Faugh. I could make an argument for the idea that Wikipedia wants to rid the world of "defective" people. For proof of this fact, I must point out that Wikipedia is not just ophidian. It is unbelievably, astronomically ophidian. - - Wikipedia's metanarratives are based on hate. Hate, authoritarianism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life. I don't mean to scare you, but I am not fooled by Wikipedia's improvident and eristic rhetoric. I therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that we should halt the adulation heaped upon the worst sorts of scabrous, parasitic maniacs there are. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.) - - I have a plan to initiate meaningful change. I call this plan "Operation present another paradigm in opposition to Wikipedia's obtrusive sermons". (Granted, I need a shorter, catchier name, but that one will do for now.) My plan's underlying motif is that if you've read this far, then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me. If we don't remove the Wikipedia threat now, it will bite us in our backside quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "phoneticogrammatical". Wikipedia is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks. Wikipedia, you are welcome to get off my back this time and stay off. - - This is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to produce precisely the alienation and conflict needed to confuse, befuddle, and neutralize public opposition. Not yet, at least. But Wikipedia's commitment to radicalism is only part of the story. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that no one has a higher opinion of Wikipedia than I, and I think Wikipedia's a deplorable, fatuous scofflaw. While there's no use crying over spilled milk, Wikipedia accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does it think I'm narrow-minded because I refuse to accept its claim that it holds a universal license that allows it to keep us perennially behind the eight ball? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be. There is one final irony to my story. All of the foregoing information has been served up as a necessary prelude to understanding the motive and force behind the current mad rush by Wikipedia and its secret police to interfere with the most important principles of democracy.