Khemukhi Recommends How To Improve Wikipedia
Khemukhi Recommends How To Improve Wikipedia
1) Khemukhi says: Do not bother with those who reveal their identity - just read the content and if it is good, keep it.
I wrote an entry about MaheshaBSD, which is included in the Wikipedia's list of BSD operating systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BSD_operating_systems), and I will explain why my whole entry about it was deleted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MaheshaBSD), although it has been preserved on many Wiki-like websites (for example: http://unix.org.in/2010/08/maheshabsd-a-live-cd-from-the-himalayas/).
When I wrote the entry about MaheshaBSD into the English Wikipedia, editors knew (from my personal user page) who I am, that I have a website about FreeBSD (www.freebsd.nfo.sk), and that I wrote that entry. I was punished for not being anonymous.
Many companies today hire individuals who write articles into Wikipedia, because making a number of backward links is a very effective SEO technique. But this is something the Wikipedia editors completely pay no heed to - that is, with respect to identity. Imagine two situations:
a) You ask someone to write an article for you with a backward link and it will stay in Wikipedia (because you hide yourself).
b) You disclose your identity, but the editors will delete your entry (the same content).
If you can reply to the question "what is the difference?" you already know that in this situation it is not the content but disclosing a contributor's identity that matters - it is unwanted because it is understood as "biased information", which is intellectual dishonesty. I wrote into the talk page that the entry about MaheshaBSD could not be biased if I only said what MaheshaBSD does - it is simply a FreeBSD LiveCD distribution I have on my RootBSD FTP server. I expressed my opinion that "no bias can be in any encyclopedic entry that simply says what a knife or a measuring tool does. It can be only incomplete, not biased." I said that I disagreed with the editor's template note that my article about MaheshaBSD was biased. Soon after I expressed myself in the talk page they deleted it.
However, I agree with rules that products should not be advertised, but MaheshaBSD is a FreeBSD system - free for anybody - and I do not collect money for making it, neither do I have any donation requests on my website. I simply wrote that entry only because I honestly believed that such information should be there and I did not hire anybody to do this for me, because I assumed that in "a free and friendly community" any valuable encyclopedic entry is welcomed - MaheshaBSD, too, as it is the only LiveCD FreeBSD distribution in the world that immediately supports watching Youtube videos and I also wrote an article about it in the (BSD magazine).
If somebody does not understand such a trivial thing that anybody can ask anybody to write an entry into Wikipedia, this means that the Wikipedia's policy rules, deletion policy, etc. are frankly bad.
2) Khemukhi says: Do not always delete articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources.
I will explain this on the arguments why no reliable source of Goddess Khemukhi is possible.
When I wrote my entry about goddess Khemukhi, I used information from the website devata.org where Her name is listed in the number of more than 80 goddesses like Sri Kshattra-dharmmini, Sri Sinha-sinha, or Sri Antakari - a seated goddess, with open mouth, ready to devour. Please, make a Google search for "Sri Vibhasa", for example - I found only one entry in Google (of course, before publishing this article). However, I did not copy the note on the devata.org website that Sri Khemukhi, the long-beaked bird on the pedestal, "seems to refer to the name, which may perhaps be translated 'voracious mouth' from khed, to eat." I made a several-hour research and made the first entry about Her in the English-speaking Internet, but with my own notes.
As I study Hinduism a lot, I already knew that the word "mukhi" is used for rudrakshas (a large seed traditionally used for prayer beads in Hinduism). There are one mukhi rudrakshas, two mukhi rudrakshas, etc., as nature provided them with a number of "faces" in the same manner like we see in a number of species of dogs or flowers of the same class.
The word "Khemukhi", if you search in a number of Sanskrit dictionaries, is most probably derived from "khe" (in the sky) and "mukhi" (faced). This is something anybody can find out in any Sanskrit dictionary and it does not require any references or citations. The second problem with 64 goddesses is that it was a very secret cult without any reliable information and, of course, without any "trusted" sources. You see that Wikipedia applies the same rule for information that can be verified and that cannot be verified, as secret organizations have never been publicly known. Like freemasons, there are a number of underground groups all over the world (like DHvSS - man of the black stone), or search for the term "vril" (based on the Edward Bulwer-Lytton's book "The Coming Race") - these groups need special treatment and exceptional inclusion policies in Wikipedia! I simply have enough self-criticism to say that I am not qualified to write an article about freemasonry. Only a freemason is! Wikipedia's entry about freemasonry lacks information that "secret societies give deliberately malformed and confusing communication to the public in order to hide themselves and no reliable source is ever available (except for freemasons themselves)".
3) Khemuki asks: Why do you not advertise and pay those who know?
I do not understand why the names of 50 editors (professors and specialists) cannot be disclosed and given a credit to. What is the difference between "an advertisement" and a "personal appeal banner" every Wikipedia's entry now has when you click on it? Every company in the world would be happy to have its advertisement on Wikipedia in the same way wee daily see on CNN, or in a bus. In such a situation, the collected money could be given to qualified scholars who would make Wikipedia even better and it would receive a lot of credit. Charity, too, would be possible.
4) Khemukhi says: Do not make Wikipedia the biggest uneducated community in the world!
I agree with the above Sri Khemukhi's recommendation, as to accomplish a number of things (transplantation of heart, for example) requires a certain knowledge, or education. If a surgeon with a 30-year practice in transplantations of heart is put on the same level as a 16-year-old boy, who may even delete this professor's clarifications - which the anonymous editor fails to revert, what do you think Wikipedia is all about? I read one interesting comment and I will share it with you: "They follow the policies to their letter, while entirely ignoring their spirit."
I still believe that Wikipedia is a very good idea. By no means do I want to condemn those many thousands people who wrote a number of really excellent articles, but I believe, as Sri Khemukhi suggests, this encyclopedia would be much better with hands and brains of those editors who left and with thousands of poor children who might receive more social work and more medical treatments. I do not understand a phobia for advertisers in the world full of banners everywhere - in elevators, buses, all TV channels, mobile phones, etc. Do you know that the words like Novell, RedHat, etc. already carry within themselves a hidden form of "free advertising"? Just when I move my eyes only five inches to the right from the computer screen (where I see the Wikipedia's "free of advertisement" appeal), I see my computer trademark, three inches to the left I see dozens of manufacturers' trademarks (CD's, DVD's, remote control logo, logos of book publishers, etc.). How can this all make me feel that it is good that "Wikipedia is free of advertisement"? Such a concept of "freedom" is a biased view, which is in contradiction with the Wikipedia's policy rules - either you delete me or I delete you - a banner is just a banner. And this is the Sri Khemukhi's banner!
These are the reasons I ignore a personal donation appeal from this encyclopedia founder. I asked my friend to donate to OpenBSD and he did. If you know something about computers - we all rely on OpenSSH - the only reliable communication today. Almost every company uses it. On the OpenSSH website it is written: "This list specifically includes companies like Cisco, Juniper, Apple, Red Hat, and Novell; but probably includes almost all router, switch or unix-like operating system vendors. In the 10 years since the inception of the OpenSSH project, these companies have contributed not even a dime of thanks in support of the OpenSSH project (despite numerous requests).
A personal appeal of the type like "we can keep it free of advertising", or "we can keep it growing" with the policy of anonymity and in disharmony with the Sri Khemukhi's recommendations is cowardness. Please donate and thank to things that are really good! OpenSSH is not cowardness and it needs more donations than anything else (OpenSSH).
What is Thesis Theme? How to Focus on Romance Watch Dexter Season 5 Episode 10 Gypsy Fortune Tellers - What to Expect Feel Like Royalty during your Phuket Stay Horoscope Fortune Teller - What to Expect Dinosaur Eggs–A Parable Of Following Through,Keep going until you get the whole egg! Phuket is Your Entrance to Heaven on Earth How To Setup A Webinar G Headshot - The Truth How would you define Maturity? Are You A Pig? Watch Boardwalk Empire Season 1 Episode 11