Incompetent editor ruining Wikipedia Buddhist articles

[alwayson]

Which is better?

A. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =458672739


B. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka


These Wikipedia "regulars" don't even understand what aggregates are in Buddhism, I kid you not.

I am not exaggerating.

Basically the last people on earth who should be messing around with these pages, are the ones that do it the most.

[Virgo]

Wikipedia is a wiki, making it, by nature...

Kevin

[padma norbu]

A

[alwayson]

A

Correct.

A is the correct one according to both academic books and Loppon Namdrol.

[padma norbu]

So what are we gonna do about it? How do we get this guy? Let's kick his ass!

I do know that Wikipedia people can be corrected and warned because it happened to me when I repeatedly corrected a Wikipedia article that was wrong. Somebody said if I did it again, they'd ban me or something. That was years ago and the extent of my interest in editing Wikipedia. Forgot what the article was, but it wasn't Buddhism. So, presumably, there is some court of appeals process you might turn to.

[alwayson]

Madhyamaka is too "obscure" for the appeals process.

All that needs to happen though is people leaving a statement to restore choice A (w/ a half decent argument):

You would do that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Madhyamaka

[edearl]

Post your complaint and a link to "A. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =458672739" on the discussion page. Alternatively, edit the page and make it better. Wikipedia has thousands of editors, some good, some incompetent, and some malevolent. Sometimes wiki pages can be like Dharma Wheel threads--contentious.

[Acchantika]

Which is better?

A. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =458672739


B. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka

A is biased, badly cited, confused and uniformative, as well as simply mistaken on several points. B is obviously the superior article from any editorial perspective, although still lacking in many ways, probably as a result of repeated bastardisation.

From reading the discussion pages, as well as those on the sunyata article, the resident editors treated the various (at least five) sockpuppets responsible with respect, maturity, patience and understanding. They were recieved with anger, personal attacks, arrogance, appeals to personal authority and childlike dismissal.

It is such a deep regret that those who attempt to properly inform public opinion about Buddhism ubiasedly and objectively through the likes of Wikipedia, for no benefit or gain, thanks or praise, and not by virtue of their seeking to validate their own position nor project personal insecurity in seeking to "convert" others to their viewpoint, but merely the willingness to provide information for those seeking it, should have to suffer such blatant hostility, abuse and emotional tirades.

[alwayson]

A is biased, badly cited, confused and uniformative, as well as simply mistaken on several points.

Not according to the books themselves, Namdrol, padma norbu, or several other people who have commented on these issues.

Do a search in the search engine for Gorampa.

[padma norbu]

I think we found our Wikipedia vandal.

[alwayson]

I think we found our Wikipedia vandal.

Yes I think we have, unless you are talking about me LOL

[padma norbu]

I think we found our Wikipedia vandal.

Yes I think we have, unless you are talking about me LOL

I don't know, friend. You're pretty suspcious. I wish there was a smiley icon where he lowers his glasses and he scrutinizes you suspiciously.

What were some of the errors in article A you found fault with? I thought A was a bit difficult to follow because it was just rapid-fire explanation, but I found article B to be useless. I am only comparing introductory paragraphs, not the full articles.

[alwayson]

What were some of the errors in article A you found fault with? I thought A was a bit difficult to follow because it was just rapid-fire explanation, but I found article B to be useless. I am only comparing introductory paragraphs, not the full articles.

I assume this part was directed to Acchantika, not me.

[padma norbu]

What were some of the errors in article A you found fault with? I thought A was a bit difficult to follow because it was just rapid-fire explanation, but I found article B to be useless. I am only comparing introductory paragraphs, not the full articles.

I assume this part was directed to Acchantika, not me.

correct, he's the one who said A had many errors.

[Acchantika]

A is biased, badly cited, confused and uniformative, as well as simply mistaken on several points.

Not according to the books themselves, Namdrol, padma norbu, or several other people who have commented on these issues.

I'm not in a position to dictate how best to describe "Madhyamaka" since I lack the necessary credentials and am not doing so.

You asked which article is better, on an open-source encyclopaedia. The ideal article would be unbiased, well-referenced, coherent and informative. The article A was least like this, while the article B is most like this. Therefore, article B is better.

It has nothing to do with “which article conforms most to my opinion about the subject matter”, as I am not personally in a position to do that. It has to do with simple facts like, for example, citing a single book five times in a row in an introduction is not acceptable referencing in any academic context, and will necessarily reflect bias. Or, briefly representing a Tibetan viewpoint out of context in the introduction to a tradition 2000 years old, with an extensive and complex contentious history, that is not always even Tibetan, is, also, necessarily reflecting a bias by attributing selective significance. None of these observations require significant authority about Madhyamaka nor a subjective evaluation of who is right, wrong or important.

[alwayson]

Thats pretty ironic considering B cites a Gelugpa (Tibetan) book for its main reference.

"The Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path of Enlightenment", Vol. 3 by Tsong-Kha-Pa

It has to do with simple facts like, for example, citing a single book five times in a row in an introduction is not acceptable referencing in any academic context, and will necessarily reflect bias.

The second paragraph of A uses 3 different academic sources compared to your ONE Gelugpa book.

[Acchantika]

What were some of the errors in article A you found fault with? I thought A was a bit difficult to follow because it was just rapid-fire explanation, but I found article B to be useless. I am only comparing introductory paragraphs, not the full articles.

Primarily, the views of a particular school of a particular tradition should not be in an opening paragraph of an introduction, particularly when there is a designated "Tibetan categories" section below. Citations still need to be relevant and cover multiple sources - simply that it can be cited does not establish authority. There is a world of difference between saying "All Madhyamika believe x" and "Williams (2000) suggests that all Madhyamika believe x". There are also simple factual innacuracies, such as "Eternalism is the view that something has an objective existence apart from dependent origination", for example. This is aside from any of the questionable assertions about what Madhyamika's believe. It is difficult to generalise about any school, let alone one that controversially distinguishes between those who make assertions and those who don't.

Like all sources of information, we must look at its orgination, which Wikipedia allows us to do. We find that this introduction is not an article that has gradually expanded over time, by way of multiple agreements among various contributing authors as a Wikipedia article should. Rather, one individual has deleted all previous introductory entries without good cause, despite uniform objection by all other contributors, repeatedly and not detracted by mature attempts at discussion and, eventually, multiple bannings, instead opting to simply replace the efforts of other entirely with their own work. Before we consider what the article is even about, we must ask honestly whether these are the actions of someone who seeks to genuinely inform or simply enforce a particular viewpoint.

[alwayson]

I obviously don't agree with the characterization of events described above.


I mean I pretty much caught Acchantika in a bold face lie, in my last post.

[Acchantika]

Thats pretty ironic considering B cites a Gelugpa (Tibetan) book for its main reference.

I didn't say that B was perfect, I said it was not as badly written.

The second paragraph of A uses 3 different academic sources compared to your ONE Gelugpa book.

It is not "my" book. I am not a Gelugpa. I don't think you fully appreciate how academic references work. This was explained in detail to you in the discussion page by one of the editors, there is not much point in me repeating it. There is no conspiracy against you, alwayson.

[alwayson]

I didn't say that B was perfect, I said it was not as badly written.

padma norbu called it "useless"