01.12.20 Update
Per Wikipedia, “Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. Outside of Wikipedia, original research is a key part of scholarly work. However, Wikipedia editors must not base their contributions on their own original research. Wikipedia editors must base their contributions on reliable, published sources. Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.” Thus I say, based on my own original research, if you simply want a repeat of what other white folks have said, Wickedpedia is the place for you; however if you want any other viewpoint, oh well. I'll repeat that Wickedpedia is useful for some facts sometimes. Let's be perfectly clear. The problem is not that Wickedpedia does not publish original thought. The problem is by what criteria does Wickedpedia determine a source is reliable?This then takes us back to who gets to set the standard?
Who gets to say what is truth?
Who gets to establish the context, worldview, utamawazo? Thus in the deep recess logic of our thought processes, we are misled to believe:
1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, thus objective, fact-based, thus reliable.
2. Wikipedia is the most up-to-date accurate source of information. Both of these notions, for reasons in this message and the message linked above, must at least be questioned, and ultimately concluded to be false overall, and only partially true on a case by case critically analyzed basis. Then then leads back to the first paragraph. Wickedpedia not only wants us to rely on what they consider reliable, Wickedpedia also wants us to conclude what those sources conclude. No article on Wickedpedia is able to draw an alternate conclusion, even if that thought process can be clearly delineated. You can't even draw an alternate conclusion even if all the points you are making come from reliable published sources that Wikipedia accepts as reliable published sources.
In other words, you cannot think for yourself and have that thought be considered reliable. This is wickedness in a world that supposedly values innovation, free thinking, thinking outside the box and all such other phrases. The whole notion of disregarding original thought is counter to evolution. Without evolution, civilization cannot be achieved or maintained. This is wickedness and why I call Wikipedia, Wickedpedia. And this is why revolution of thought is taking place because at the root of wickedness is the lack of original thought caused by miseducation worldwide as the mark of exhibited beasts.
