Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Basically, I edit to add my own perspective to the articles. Some might call that ] but I counter that we can ONLY edit from our own ]. It is where we are, our point of view, the point we view things from. What is really the issue is that we present our perspective in a fair and verifiable fashion and do not deny others the same right.
Basically, I edit to add my own perspective to the articles. Some might call that ] but I counter that we can ONLY edit from our own ]. It is where we are, our point of view, the point we view things from. What is really the issue is that we present our perspective in a fair and verifiable fashion and do not deny others the same right.
Let me expand; If you come to an article and it is just how you would write it, has all the elements you think are important, with the proper amount of importance assigned to each then you would find little to edit there - it is already correct and complete '''from your perspective'''. If it is controversial subject but you found the opposing side(s) to be fairly presented in accordance with wikipedia fundamental policies then you might be pretty satisfied overall. IMO, we edit articles because they are not already complete and correct '''from our perspective''' and/or the opposing side(s) are not presented fairly or inaccordance with wikipedia policy. I find many articles in the Scientology series that, based on the above, I feel that I can contribute to.
Let me expand; If you come to an article and it is just how you would write it, has all the elements you think are important, with the proper amount of importance assigned to each, no extraneous elements, then you would find little to edit there - it is already correct and complete '''from your perspective'''. If it is controversial subject but you felt the opposing side(s) to be fairly presented in accordance with wikipedia fundamental policies then you might be pretty satisfied overall. IMO, we edit articles because they are not already complete and correct '''from our perspective''' and/or the opposing side(s) are not, in your estimation, presented fairly or inaccordance with wikipedia policy. I find many articles in the Scientology series that, based on the above, I feel that I can contribute to. I do not imply that my edits are the be all and the end all; I simply state that I have something to contribute.
== What about Scientology ==
== What about Scientology ==
Revision as of 21:33, 11 October 2006
About me
You will perhaps forgive me if I do not say too much "About me". I enjoy the anonymity I have here and am not anxious to "out" myself.
This has to do with my stand on Scientology, you see. I edit from what I call a "Scientology-sympathetic" viewpoint. However, I also understand where most critics are coming from and do not oppose their right to criticize the Church of Scientology. The Scientology Ethics Officer would likely say that I was in a Condition of Doubt or lower; the Scientology critic would likely say that I am "still brainwashed". I would deny both claims, but that is only to be expected. Since extremists on both sides are guilty of bone-headed acts against even moderate individuals on the other side, I will remain justanother - just another editor. Oh, I should mention that I most certainly do not the divide the universe into pro- and anti-Scientologist; I do not even divide the editors working on the Scientology articles here that way; I only put people in those categories that seem to so tightly hold their own POV that they cannot conceive that the other might have some validity too. I would say that they know who they are but, in actual fact, I doubt that they do.
How I edit
Basically, I edit to add my own perspective to the articles. Some might call that POV but I counter that we can ONLY edit from our own perspective. It is where we are, our point of view, the point we view things from. What is really the issue is that we present our perspective in a fair and verifiable fashion and do not deny others the same right.
Let me expand; If you come to an article and it is just how you would write it, has all the elements you think are important, with the proper amount of importance assigned to each, no extraneous elements, then you would find little to edit there - it is already correct and complete from your perspective. If it is controversial subject but you felt the opposing side(s) to be fairly presented in accordance with wikipedia fundamental policies then you might be pretty satisfied overall. IMO, we edit articles because they are not already complete and correct from our perspective and/or the opposing side(s) are not, in your estimation, presented fairly or inaccordance with wikipedia policy. I find many articles in the Scientology series that, based on the above, I feel that I can contribute to. I do not imply that my edits are the be all and the end all; I simply state that I have something to contribute.
What about Scientology
For now, just let me say that the richness and the "truth" of the philosophy put forth by LRH is only hinted at here on wikipedia. That is all for now - I will work more on this later.
