User:Justanother

About me

You will perhaps forgive me if I do not say too much "About me". I enjoy the anonymity I have here and am not anxious to "out" myself. This has to do with my stand on Scientology, you see. I edit from what I call a "Scientology-sympathetic" viewpoint. However, I also understand where most critics are coming from and do not oppose their right to criticize the Church of Scientology. The Scientology Ethics Officer would likely say that I was in a Condition of Doubt or lower; the Scientology critic would likely say that I am "still brainwashed". I would deny both claims, but that is only to be expected. Since extremists on both sides are guilty of bone-headed acts against even moderate individuals on the other side, I will remain justanother - just another editor. Oh, I should mention that I most certainly do not the divide the universe into pro- and anti-Scientologist; I do not even divide the editors working on the Scientology articles here that way; I only put people in those categories that seem to so tightly hold their own POV that they cannot conceive that the other might have some validity too. I would say that they know who they are but, in actual fact, I doubt that they do.

How I edit

Basically, I edit to add my own perspective to the articles. Some might call that POV but I counter that we can ONLY edit from our own perspective. It is where we are, our point of view, the point we view things from. What is really the issue is that we present our perspective in a fair and verifiable fashion and do not deny others the same right.

Let me expand; If you come to an article and it is just how you would write it, has all the elements you think are important, with the proper amount of importance assigned to each, no extraneous elements, then you would find little to edit there - it is already correct and complete from your perspective. If it is controversial subject but you felt the opposing side(s) to be fairly presented in accordance with wikipedia fundamental policies then you might be pretty satisfied overall. IMO, we edit articles because they are not already complete and correct from our perspective and/or the opposing side(s) are not, in our estimation, presented fairly or in accordance with wikipedia policy. I find many articles in the Scientology series that, based on the above, I feel that I can contribute to. I do not imply that my edits are the be all and the end all; I simply state that I have something to contribute.

For inclusion in wikipedia, our perspective must be a shared perspective and must be verifiable in each particular. The arrangement and choice of what verifiable material to include is where we get to contribute our understanding to the article; we do not get to use loaded terms that specifically add our own interpretation. We cannot describe something as bad or good or anything else. We can report that a reputable source either stated that or quoted someone else stating that. The terms that we contribute must be neutral.

You might also say that we edit from our understanding of the subject. That understanding may be imperfect but often we improve it during the process of editing, an example of what the Scientologist calls the KRC triangle, the link between Knowledge, Responsibility, and Control. Once we decide to take responsibility for an article and start to control the mechanical process of editing, our knowledge increases, which leads to better control of our tools and research, more knowledge, a higher willingness to take responsibility. The Scientologist knows that they are linked and by increasing any one, you increase all three. That is cool because it means that you can enter at any point. You may start with knowledge; you read an article, decide you would like to know a bit more and research it a bit, then edit the article (responsiblity and control). Likewise you can enter at the point of control, perhaps making a minor edit not particularly related to the content of the article.

What about Scientology

For now, just let me say that the richness and the "truth" of the philosophy put forth by LRH is only hinted at here on wikipedia. That is all for now - I will work more on this later.

An Open Letter to Scientologists

For now, I quote from a previous post. I stress the importance of wikipedia and invite more Scientologists to edit here in a spirit of cooperation. I will expand on this theme in the future and post a "hat write-up" of what I feel it takes to successfully edit here (for now "live and let live" will work pretty well). This is a big job and the more people working on it, the better.

"Someone that wanted to know about Scientology might google the term and be presented with these top three choices; the official CoS site, the clambake site, and wikipedia. They might recognize that the first two would be clearly biased but might mistake wikipedia for being encyclopedic and unbiased on the subject of Scn. While wikipedia might be a great source for many topics, even the critic's crow their success in making the Scientology articles a mass of "entheta" (Scn for lies, upsets, misinformation - Touretzky gleefully proclaims wikipedia an "entheta-palooza" on the subject of Scientology).[1] Both sides basically seek to make wikipedia a mirror of their own websites; the critics are winning. My goal is to make it encyclopedic and to show the good side of Scn in the sympathetic light it deserves while not discounting the bad side. Meaning that I will not contribute to the bad side but neither will I try to prevent it from being PROPERLY presented (i.e. derogatory information must be well-referenced, and discredited or biased sources reported in reliable sources to be such should be labeled as such). I should mention that I feel that there are plenty of editors here that are "mirror images" of myself, i.e. they are "no fans of Scientology" but would not dream of standing in the way of my well presented presentation of the good in Scientology provided that I allowed critics the same rights as I ask for for myself. ... On the other hand, there are some that want to prevent ANY presentation of the good side of Scn. They probably feel that Scn is SO bad that any good is irrelevant; it would be like mentioning that Ted Bundy bought Girl Scout cookies to support the Girl Scouts. Such a claim is ridiculous and insulting to the perhaps 500,000 active Scientologists that would disagree and all those that they impact favorably."

On wikilawyering

During a recent run-in with a sysop, I was accused of "wikilawyering". What I realized is that making such a claim is a great means of avoiding dealing with the actual substance of what I was asserting. It is kinda like when the CoS declares someone to be an SP. So we have: "I don't have to deal with your complaints because you are "wikilawyering'" and "We don't have to deal with your complaints because you are an evil SP". Huh. I should note that the sysop in question never ever dealt with the substance of my issues. Even after I put it on Jimbo's talk page as she was usurping a right only Jimbo holds as an individual, the right to ban users; even after I very specifically asked her to address the issue on her talk page. Oh well, I don't assume bad faith, just low confront.