User:Valjean#Vindicated regarding AE case and Quackwatch!

My history here

"Yes, I've been around a long, long time.

Yes, I've really, really paid my dues."[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOnzDKvn7YI&ab_channel=GravityLimited] — B.B. King

I started here as an IP editor in 2003, before we had reached the 200,000 articles milestone on February 2, 2004,[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_milestones]

and finally registered an account on December 18, 2005, {{Age in years and days|2005|12|18}} ago.

Valjean is my third username.

My fingerprints are still in our most important and fundamental policies and guidelines,

so I must have done something right. {{;)}}

Transparency: My media diet

Our purpose here is to give free access to

"the sum of all human knowledge"

that is mentioned in reliable sources.

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given

free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."

— Jimmy Wales[https://www.ted.com/talks/jimmy_wales_on_the_birth_of_wikipedia/transcript]

"A free encyclopedia encompassing the whole of human knowledge,

written almost entirely by unpaid volunteers: Can you believe that was the one that worked?"

— Richard Cooke[https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-online-encyclopedia-best-place-internet/]

"If I go looking for info, and Wikipedia doesn't have it, then Wikipedia has failed."

— Baseball Bugs[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jeopardy!_contestants_(2nd_nomination)&diff=1037146565&oldid=1037132792&diffmode=source]

That literally means ALL information, not just facts.

That includes opinions, beliefs, lies, conspiracy theories, pseudoscientific nonsense, etc.

We document the existence of it all.

We are inclusionist by nature.

If it has been said or written in a RS, it becomes potential content here.

That doesn't mean we will include it, just that we should consider its suitability for inclusion.

It might be suitable for one spot, but not another.

Although we don't treat different types of "human knowledge" in the same way,

we still document its existence.

If a topic is never mentioned in any RS,

then it's not notable enough for an article or mention.

Read [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/How_Wikipedia_Works How Wikipedia Works]

Truth versus Verifiability

Many think that Wikipedia only publishes what is true,

or that it publishes all truth. No, not all things that are

true are easily verifiable, and we also document things that are not true.

We must avoid any original research when trying to write what is true

as we need to maintain the distinction between TRUTH and VERIFIABILITY.

We are mostly concerned with the latter as documenting what is true is not always easy,

and people's ideas of what is true are often subjective and conflicting.

Fortunately we can usually verify what is true.

If an important idea is not verifiable, then it is likely not objectively true.

Verifiability is truth *

"It is commonly cited that the minimum

condition for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.

However, for Wikipedia's purposes, verifiability is truth.

We can't call something true without evidence,

and our standard of evidence is verifiability from reliable, published sources."

(Copied from Maddy from Celeste)

(* It's actually not that simple. Here is an interesting discussion.)

"Neutrality is not the average between bollocks and reality.

In science, any compromise between a correct statement and an incorrect statement is an incorrect statement."
JZG 21:25, 14 November 2019

Belief Without Evidence is Wrong

"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

— William Kingdon Clifford

"A habit of basing convictions upon evidence,

and of giving to them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants,

would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which this world is suffering."

— Bertrand Russell

About Lunatic Charlatans

"What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans

is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse.' It isn't."

— Jimbo Wales[http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/wikipedia-founder-calls-alt-medicine-practitioners-lunatic-charlatans/]

Jimmy Wales's opinion of the former president

"If President Trump tweets something that is nonsense,
we don't accept him as a source in Wikipedia for random things he says on Twitter.

We have a group of admins who are very strict and firm on what can be entered....

The president's power does not extend to shutting down or threatening social media platforms.

That's illegal. It's not something he can do. We do have the First Amendment in the US....

The worst-case scenario is that they don't have the courage to tell him to go away,

that they begin to adapt their policies to his whims because he's a lunatic."

— Jimmy Wales, May 28, 2020[https://www.timesnownews.com/videos/et-now/exclusive/donald-trump-is-a-lunatic-wikipedia-co-founder-jimmy-wales-exclusive/62348]

Trey Gowdy on "Republican kamikazes" and election deniers

In spite of all the shenanigans Gowdy has pulled,

he does have a brilliant legal mind. Here's an example of great reasoning:

"So much for elections having consequences or respecting the will of the people

or whatever platitudes uttered but only when convenient,"

Gowdy continued. "This small band of Republican kamikazes are

convinced Donald Trump won the presidency in 2020 with 47% of the vote

yet somehow Kevin McCarthy lost the speaker's race with 85% of the vote."[https://www.msn.com/en-US/news/politics/fox-news-host-trey-gowdy-scorches-republicans-for-not-respecting-results-of-yet-another-vote/ar-AA15bjL8]

Just follow our rules

As long as you follow the rules here, you'll be okay, but if not, you're screwed!

When you find one of my mistakes

I shot an error in the air,

It fell to earth I knew not where,

Until some people wrote to tell

Me where on earth my error fell.

A few of them in rage profound

Berated me on my home ground.

While others of a kinder bent

Politely questioned my intent.

But most were fans who wrote to say

They loved my books, though by the way,

That whizzing error split their clout

And I'd be wise to cut it out.

Dr. Ellen Mandell / [https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Outlandish_Companion/wPi9RTbWu1YC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22I+shot+an+error+in+the+air%22+%22It+fell+to+earth+I+knew+not+where%22++%22Ellen+Mandell%22&pg=PT574&printsec=frontcover Gabaldon]

(with apologies to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Poems_That_Every_Child_Should_Know/The_Arrow_and_the_Song])

Proper communication

The importance of proper communication and response to queries for explanations is important.

Refusal to respond and explain can only lead to problems.

In the context of what seemed to be a BLP violation, which requires immediate removal,

I removed text that seemed to violate the BLP policy. The editor who made the content objected,

berated and abused me, accused me of all sorts of evil

but refused to explain what they really meant, to which I

(after long and frustrating attempts to get clarity about the matter) responded:

"Let me get this right. You assert I'm guilty

of an "incorrect interpretation of what" [you] "write"

but won't explain how I have misinterpreted you,

and that this refusal by you is somehow my fault.

Is that right?"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Valjean&diff=1121137809&oldid=1121128802]

The point? If you write something, you have the burden of proof to defend it. Silence and stonewalling are not legitimate options.

Wisdom from ScottishFinnishRadish

"At the very least you should try to back off long engagements

with editors that you're not going to convince to your point of view.

The chance of attracting uninvolved input

decreases with every level of indentation in the discussion."[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee&diff=prev&oldid=1180330238]