Wielding The Wiki

An old laptop I bought in Hawaii when I went snorkeling there by myself,
back when I was still trading securities (legalized international gambling).
A book I enjoyed reading about three sisters who owned a Bed and Breakfast.
A candle purchased at Cotton On whose proceeds went to feed the hungry.
A plant I recently put outside after spotting certain bugs I didn't want crawling around.
A computer monitor a friend gave me for free so I can play retro games on (Raspberry Pi).
An alarm clock that is well over ten years old, and still works
(but whose alarm haunts me and reminds me of my working stiff years, thus I never use it).
Every thing else came with the rented room.

A favorite past-time of mine is editing Wikipedia.

I know - I've officially attained nerd status - I am not ashamed.

Actually, I've been a nerd (in the most positive sense of that word: someone who enjoys learning) all my life.

I peruse particular topics on Wikipedia that I find intriguing, important, infectious, and instigating.

I don't use my given name, so you won't find me any time soon.

Recently at a book club meeting a friend mentioned how, as a child, he would read through the dictionary.

I used to do that as well... and still do every so often.

I have a sociology dictionary I dive into every so often.

Learning is vital, the increase of knowledge necessary, the effort towards wisdom life changing.

In editing Wikipedia, most of the edits are well intentioned.

Depending on the article and its subject matter, what is brought out from scholarship is often contested by anonymous vandals... them pushing either very incorrect or very misleading nonsense.

But to them, what they share is not nonsense but simply what they've been taught, what they've learned, what they have been led to believe as 'true'.

Misleading because often times, especially regarding religious ideas, what is popularly repeated is not what was originally taught or even mentioned.

Religion has its fair share of legend, besides things and events that are true and factual despite a lack of evidence supporting certain things.

Sometimes you simply have to take someone's word for what it is worth.

But not on Wikipedia.

What is edited must be supported by a notable authority.

And that's fine.

There is enough truth floating around and captured by so-called authorities that makes its way into important Wikipedia articles.

Your word used to mean something... it meant life or death.

For people like me, your word still means something - something rooted in one's character.

For many other people, especially people either accustomed to lying or who have already lost the ability to distinguish between a lie and the truth, keeping one's word may be a joke to them.

Or perhaps they only keep their word with people they either respect, fear, or somehow honor over others.

What about keeping one's word in all circumstances, in the face of all others, and sticking to what one perceives to understand as the truth?

So I read a lot of people's 'words' at Wikipedia; things they've heard someone else say about any certain topic, and they add their two cents to any particular article.

This is what, sadly, Wikipedia has become known for.

But the incorrect eventually is corrected.

There is a vast community of thinkers, researchers, intellectuals, and nerds who do their best to manage that site to make sure it reflects the citations.

Some of these people are the real journalists of today.

To gather information from a notable source, and to also identify a hint of bias from that source, and still use that source in a way that balances out the tone of any given article... is the art form of true journalism.

To put down words in a way that speak directly to the topic yet do not give undue weight in any given direction... is weaving a masterful collage of words.

Reading through the citations is key.

If something sounds odd, or ridiculous, take a look at the citation and look it up.

I understand - in this ever-exponential world of digital speed where slowing down feels like dying, taking a break from the quickness of life to get bogged down reading a text book may not be fashionable or too tasking for short attention spans.

Also when looking into the citations, be sure to reflect your own bias.

You may be attracted to one particular author / scholar / news source due to its inherent and unforeseen bias (a bias already reflected in yourself).

This is why it is vitally important to also read ideas from a directly opposing side, and also other sides... for therein some truth may be derived, always understanding certain things of truth being typically relative.

You may choose your place on the pecking order... but often times, it is already chosen for you.

I choose to be informed, to 'get to the bottom' of any such thing... and as this effort is increased, the baloney is seen among the choice cuts.

I like baloney (bologna), but only in an actual meal (and not too often)... and not so much when I'm feeding my mind.

Only choice cuts for my mind.

This is why I've weaned myself off of television and most mainstream programming.

It has not been easy.

By choosing choice information in place of noise and hysterics, I can sleep better at night.

And when awake, I see clearly past the noise, media hype, emotional baggage, and other ills that are compounded onto the gullible masses (what I can still be a part of if I allow my attention to be hijacked by the noise).

The noise is everywhere, even on Wikipedia... but there are those who do their best to eliminate the noise in favor of what is regarded as symphonies of fact ... or someone's best guess cited by certain authorities.

I am one of those noise eliminators.

I used to be a part of the noise.. and for some things, I still make some noise.

Noise has its place, just not all the time.

The crash of a cymbal is noisy when not orchestrated, but when found complimentary with all the other sounds that make a symphony, the noisiness of a cymbal's crash finds its place.

My effort on Wikipedia is not my 'work' per-say.

I am not compensated for it, nor is it a part of my work requirement.

Since I sometimes utilize Wikipedia to start my research into notable sources, from that research certain insights are wrought and I am compelled to share proper or better citations and also the insights found therein.

When some anonymous coward comes along and disturbs what is according to Wikipedia guidelines and attempts to bring forth noise (whether popularly accepted noise or fringe, makes no difference), I do somewhat take it personally.

I take personally an attack on what is recognized as truth and fact.

Truth and fact is not measured by popular consensus, but again by words that conclude logically and rationally when all things are primarily reflected.

To disturb the truth of any matter is, somehow and for some reason, offensive to me.

For me to ignore an encroachment on the truth for too long would be similar to me giving tacit agreement to such violence.

Yes, a lie is violent.

How and why?

You should know if anyone has ever lied to you and you felt the sting of pain when finding out what you believed to be true was a lie.

Lies are not only dangerous, they arouse violence.

The truth, however, although instigating to the already violent due to their adherence to lies, is like a sun-kiss on a cold wintery day for lovers of truth.

To hear the truth is liberating for those who love the truth.

The read the truth in a space like Wikipedia is consoling, especially for those searching for the truth and who are ready for it.

The recompense for this effort of mine will never be realized temporally, and that is fine by me.