Ikwipedia:Motivations for Ikwipedia: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 22:01, 31 December 2024

Ikwipedia was created based on a hypothesis, arguably unproven and possibly unverifiable, that a viewpoint's being counter to the mainstream narrative may negatively affect whether it is included in mainstream publishers like Wikipedia. This hypothesis seems to be supported by accounts of individuals, such as scientists and historians, who have allegedly faced retaliation for their counter-mainstream theories as well as whistleblowers or leakers involved in the alleged narrative-suppression and/or retaliation systems.

The alleged systematic disincentive(s) that drive the alleged systemic tendencies against the inclusion of non-mainstream-aligned claims may be sized proportionally to the magnitude of a given claim's deviation from the mainstream — possibly without regard to, or even in proportion to, a claim's alignment with the "ultimate" truth of the matter at hand — resulting in an unfairly extreme underrepresentation of extremely non-mainstream-aligned views. Whatever the mechanism of such a system of disincentives, it may inhibit relatively credible witnesses from being seriously considered by secondary sources, particularly professional researchers who investigate published claims and accounts. The few testimonies that do gain traction may often go un-reviewed or unaggregated in publications like Wikipedia or scholarly articles.

Presenting a more comprehensive view of the available information, therefore, logically requires counteracting this hypothetical bias by amplifying certain narratives, testimonies, and theories that are aligned with extremely non-mainstream-aligned views and/or which have been inadvertently or deliberately misrepresented in mainstream discourse. Our observation that many seemingly disparate conspiracy theories are often aligned and reconcilable suggests they may warrant more consideration in that light. This encyclopedia is an attempt to explain everything without contradicting itself — with the assumption that written language (in the form of wiki articles) is adequate to do so, though it may not be. Presenting conspiracy theories fairly and examining the suggestive tendencies of language such as 'alternative narrative', 'conspiracy theory', and 'conspiracy' may allow a coherent theoretical understanding of reality to emerge.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Ikwipedia was created with a hypothesis-based philosophy that explores several interrelated notions. One is that being counter to the mainstream narrative may negatively affect whether a viewpoint is included in mainstream publishers like Wikipedia. This hypothesis, while currently unproven and possibly unverifiable, seems to be supported by accounts of [[List of investigators who alleged negative consequences, up to and including deliberate retaliation, for espousing purportedly evidence-based non-mainstream-aligned theories|individuals, such as scientists and historians, who have allegedly faced retaliation for their counter-mainstream theories]] as well as whistleblowers or leakers involved in the alleged [[suppression_of_non-mainstream-aligned_theories_in_various_fields|narrative-suppression]] and/or [[retaliation_against_whistleblowers_and_witnesses_with_non-mainstream-aligned_claims|retaliation]] systems.
+Ikwipedia was created based on a hypothesis, arguably unproven and possibly unverifiable, that a viewpoint's being counter to the mainstream narrative may negatively affect whether it is included in mainstream publishers like Wikipedia. This hypothesis seems to be supported by accounts of [[List of investigators who alleged negative consequences, up to and including deliberate retaliation, for espousing purportedly evidence-based non-mainstream-aligned theories|individuals, such as scientists and historians, who have allegedly faced retaliation for their counter-mainstream theories]] as well as whistleblowers or leakers involved in the alleged [[suppression_of_non-mainstream-aligned_theories_in_various_fields|narrative-suppression]] and/or [[retaliation_against_whistleblowers_and_witnesses_with_non-mainstream-aligned_claims|retaliation]] systems.
-The hypothesis posits the reality of such a bias that, in some people's perception, leads to a systematic disincentive to the inclusion of certain viewpoints and theories. If true, this disincentive may grow in proportion to the deviation from mainstream thought, resulting in the underrepresentation of minority perspectives. The hypothesized mechanism inhibits relatively credible witnesses from being seriously considered by secondary sources, particularly professional researchers who investigate published claims and accounts. The few testimonies that do gain traction may often go un-reviewed or unaggregated in publications like Wikipedia or scholarly articles, emphasizing a gap in critical evaluation. Presenting a more holistic view of the available information, therefore, logically requires counterbalancing this bias by amplifying certain narratives, testimonies, and theories that diverge from mainstream narratives or are aligned with those that do. This should provide a more comprehensive understanding of claims and worldviews that are not well-represented and/or perhaps inadvertently or deliberately misrepresented in mainstream discourse.
+The alleged systematic disincentive(s) that drive the alleged systemic tendencies against the inclusion of non-mainstream-aligned claims may be sized proportionally to the magnitude of a given claim's deviation from the mainstream — possibly without regard to, or even in proportion to, a claim's alignment with the "ultimate" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/truth truth] of the matter at hand — resulting in an unfairly extreme underrepresentation of extremely non-mainstream-aligned views. Whatever the mechanism of such a system of disincentives, it may inhibit relatively credible witnesses from being seriously considered by secondary sources, particularly professional researchers who investigate published claims and accounts. The few testimonies that do gain traction may often go un-reviewed or unaggregated in publications like Wikipedia or scholarly articles.
-Our observation that many seemingly disparate conspiracy theories are often aligned and reconcilable suggests they may warrant more consideration in that light. Presenting them within a unified framework allows readers to more informedly see their ostensible coherence and evaluate their soundness in a fair encyclopedic presentation. This presentation is assisted in part by [[Ikwipedia:Manual of Style|organizing articles]] without separate narratives for "mainstream theory" and "conspiracy theory" versions of article subjects, except for meta situations such as articles about conspiracy theories themselves. Conspiracy theories will be titled and discussed as what they are - conspiracy theories, since we aim to live in the [[Ikwipedia:Terminology#"Conspiracy theory"|same terminological universe as Wikipedia]] - but with many more articles on conspiracy theories and related obscure subjects than are allowed on Wikipedia due to the [[Ikwipedia:Acceptable Sources|source guidelines]]. Rather, articles on controversial events, biographies, subjects, etc. are organized in typical encyclopedia fashion, incorporating information from all acceptable sources. We intend for this presentation to illuminate the inherent validity, or lack thereof, of the respective conspiracy theories and of our [[Ikwipedia:Hypothesis of Ikwipedia|hypothesis itself]].
+Presenting a more comprehensive view of the available information, therefore, logically requires counteracting this [[Ikwipedia:Hypothesis of Ikwipedia|hypothetical]] bias by amplifying certain narratives, testimonies, and theories that are aligned with extremely non-mainstream-aligned views and/or which have been inadvertently or deliberately misrepresented in mainstream discourse. Our observation that many seemingly disparate conspiracy theories are often aligned and reconcilable suggests they may warrant more consideration in that light. This encyclopedia is an attempt to [[Ikwipedia:Manual of Style|explain everything without contradicting]] itself — with the assumption that written language (in the form of wiki articles) is adequate to do so, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ineffability though it may not be]. Presenting conspiracy theories fairly and examining the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences) suggestive tendencies of language] such as '[[alternative narrative]]', '[[conspiracy theory]]', and '[[conspiracy]]' may allow a coherent theoretical understanding of reality to emerge.