User:Bema Self

If you're new here (or even if you've been here a long time), you may want to check out this article about "WikiAges". You might find it useful to use the humorous tags, to help others understand where you're at in terms of experience on wikipedia. It's a more useful tool than I think many realize. Check out WikiAges here and choose your badge here.

I'd also suggest checking out the wealth of (humorous) info about various WikiFauna and WikiBeings. It's funny, but relevant. Especially if you've found yourself in the midst of a WikiBattle. Not everyone is a WikiTroll, and many wikipedians are mysterious and misunderstood. These articles may be humorous, but they can help you recognize what sort of situation your in, and how to handle it appropriately. You might also consider adding some badges to your own page, so other WikiFauna can recognize you.

On another note.... Try not to take anything TOO SERIOUSLY on wikipedia, lest you become a Wikipediholic. =)

Greetings all! I am here, just being myself as usual. I have been a longterm reader and supporter of wikipedia, and up until recently, I wasn't to active in editing or contributing. I have made a few contributions to correct some bias here and there, or to add in some information about subjects I am well versed in.

It is my hope to become more active on wikipedia, to uphold unbiased and uncensored information, without devaluing the integrity of wikipedia, which also happens when certain information is excluded only on the basis of verifiability or "protecting" others. It's a fine line we all dance, but a fun one anyways.

Just so everyone is aware, I am a writer above most other things, as well as a Gemini moon, and so it is in my nature to clearly explain things with at least three paragraphs, so as not to be misinterpreted by others to often. I'll try to keep the word count short, but sometimes it's just necessary to get it all out. --Bema Self (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Folklore is very much an organic phenomenon. . . .

It is possible to distinguish three basic conceptions of

the subject underlying many definitions; accordingly,

folklore is one of these three: a body of knowledge,

a mode of thought, or a kind of art. . . .

Folklore is not thought of as existing without or apart

from a structured group. . .its existence depends on its

social context. . . . As an artistic process, folklore may

be found in any communicative medium; musical, visual,

kinetic, or dramatic. . . . In sum, folklore is artistic

communication in small groups." (Dan Ben-Amos, 1972)

"Arguments over the definition of folklore are not like

arguments over the boiling point of water. No instrument

can test their accuracy, no artificial rules can silence

them. Each generation must state the definition anew,

debate it afresh, because folklore's definition is not

factual and free of value. Its virtue is that it is charged

with values, saturated with opinions about how one ought to

live in the world." ~From "The Moral Lore of Folklore" Henry Glassie

"Thus we can no longer speak of tradition in terms of the approximate identity of some objective thing that changes while remaining the same. Instead, we must understand tradition as a symbolic process that both presupposes past symbolisms and creatively reinterprets them. In other words, tradition is not a bounded entity made up of bounded constituent parts, but a process of interpretation, attributing meaning in the present through making reference to the past.

This understanding of tradition implies that society, commonly perceived as the largest unit of social reality, is, like tradition, a meaningful process rather a bounded object. Social identity is always formulated in interaction with others, and depends upon evolving distinctions between categories that are symbolically constituted. . . . Tradition is always defined in the present. . .[and] never exist apart from our interpretations of them." By Mary Magoulick

(to be continued) --Bema Self (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Up until recently, I was only an occasional contributor wikipedia, correcting small errors here and there. Then I came across the article about MMS (Miracle Mineral Solution), and found that the page was grossly biased and lacking in comprehensive information, which made it rather inaccurate in my opinion. Being someone who was trying to make an informed decision about the product, I had spent a lot of time researching the subject and when I came across the wiki page in it's lacking state, I figured I would help out. First I visited the Talk page, and found that people have been warring over how to produce the article for years.

The war has mostly been won by those that have "morals" and wanted to "protect" others, by keeping the MMS article highly biased towards opponents views, which doesn't fit in at all with wikipedia's Comprehensive values. So I decided to be bold, as wikipedia encourages, and make some changes to the MMS page. I also made my disappointment with the previous comments clear in a short (well short for me) comment, and then tried to edit the article in a way that wouldn't seriously offend anyone, but wouldn't lack any information either. I spent hours reorganizing the content for better formatting, grammar and information. I felt that I had covered the subject very well from an unbiased point of view. And for what I thought would be a good edit, that everyone could be happy, neither supporting or being un-supportive of the product, while still including all information relevant to the article.

To my surprise, the article was reverted in less than ten minutes, with no helpful info in the talk section. From there, I attempted to fix any perceived hours and worked on the page again. Only to have it reverted again and again for various biased reasons citing wikipedia violations that they themselves were committing. Only one edit summary left any helpful info, which suggested that my sources didn't fit in with wiki-standards. Okay, I thought, my bad. So I went to find sources that were related and might help fix the problem. And while I wasn't sure if they would fit, instead of being welcomed for the effort and simply corrected, I was ungraciously informed that my efforts to "push" the product wouldn't work. No matter how much I tried to show good reason or use logic, it seemed no good. From there it became insulting, and even I contributed to the unhelpfulness of bantering and arguing as well, feeling the need to defend myself against more than one contributor.

Then, while I was "schooling" myself on all the rules of wikipedia, I went back and found were I had added to the problem, and attempted to again make the article more balanced. It took a little longer this time, and my hopes were up that the article had finally became something everyone could be proud, when it was finally reverted again. It was then that I realized I was contributing to the edit war, mostly because there were six people reverting my edits, all with the same view point, and only one of me to try and fix my mistakes and not give up on the article. It was when I had stopped contributing and read about Edit Warring, that I was also given my first WikiWarning about that very violation.

What really goads me, isn't so much the reverting or the rude commentary, it's the lack of any attempt to fix the currently lacking situation of the article due to personal view points. Which is why I suggested deletion of the article all together on various grounds like Not Censoring information because of a POV of morality, and making wiki articles Comprehensive, even if they may be seen as objectionable or offensive. I even conceded that my own ideas for fixing the article might not be "valuable", but that something needed to be done that didn't add to the problem.

There has been a very small amount of progress on the page so far, and I hope through persistence and logic that process will continue. With that in mind, I can at least say that this EW has given me a valuable experience through learning all about wiki behaviors, politeness, procedures, pillars and processes, as well as what it's like to be Bitten on wikipedia. Who knew wikipedia users bite? --Bema Self (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Small text