06-20-2014, 12:01 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-20-2014, 01:42 AM by Adonai One.)
And... not that bad. Just a misunderstanding of Wiki-policy. I think people need to realize that Wikipedia isn't Britannica. It isn't a round table of experts on subjects asserting their views: It's information from secondary sources considered reliable by the general Wikipedia community.
Any addition, reversion and deletion is contestable. Nothing is permanent. Even deleted articles can be restored.
I am just participating in the collaborative process. Wikipedia is endless change that must be accepted and worked with. People have to be willing to discuss their views and defend them.
I have no guilt mainly because I do not feel like I am doing anything permanent, I do not feel like I am restricting anything. Anybody can contest me.
If it can be reverted or deleted, it probably should be. If a revert or deletion can be reverted, it probably should be as well. It's a process that tests its own integrity. It prevents stagnation and allows things to accommodate all perspectives.
Any addition, reversion and deletion is contestable. Nothing is permanent. Even deleted articles can be restored.
I am just participating in the collaborative process. Wikipedia is endless change that must be accepted and worked with. People have to be willing to discuss their views and defend them.
I have no guilt mainly because I do not feel like I am doing anything permanent, I do not feel like I am restricting anything. Anybody can contest me.
If it can be reverted or deleted, it probably should be. If a revert or deletion can be reverted, it probably should be as well. It's a process that tests its own integrity. It prevents stagnation and allows things to accommodate all perspectives.
![[+]](https://www.bring4th.org/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png)