Doctress Neutopia, Big Brother, and Wikipedia

 

 

Wikipedia: No original research (NOR) is one of three content policies. The others are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Wikipedia:Verifiability (V). Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace . Since the policies complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable on the English Wikipedia and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editors' consensus.

After discovering how easy it was to add links to pages, today I became a participant in the Wikipedia. I added two external links to pages where I felt my 30 year research had contributed to greater understanding. These pages are: arcology and Gaia Theory. On the Gaia hypothesis page, I added a sentence under the subheading of “Gaia Theory Outside of Science.” Certainly, my doctoral dissertation and online book Gaia: The Planetary Religion, The Sacred Marriage of Art and Science deserved a place there.

I went to the gym with a deep happiness that perhaps I had found a way to link my research and insights into the Gaia crisis to the outside world. It was liberating to think that there was a place on the Internet where there wasn't censorship and where people's egos and petty power trips didn't get in the way of our search for collective truth. How optimistic I was that perhaps Wikipedia was the place where geniuses around the world who hold ideas on how to positively evolve our planet could weave their ideas together. Such a web would create the synergy needed for a quantum leap that would lead us into the next phase of planetary awakening in understanding to occur.

An hour later I checked to see if the links had appeared. To my shock I had received an email from Mwanner informing me that I had made inappropriate links. My additions to the pages had been deleted. Mwanner's email said that I had violated the NOV (no original research) rule and the rule that one can't link oneself. Apparently, what makes pages and links acceptable on the Wikipedia are works that have already received public acknowledgement in the “real world” added by someone other than the author.

A closer read of the three content policies of Wikipedia I found them listed as: No original research (NOR); Neutral point of view (NPOV) and Verifiability (V). The slogan used for defining the principles is “the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." It goes on “Verifiable in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.”

Mwanner was the closest thing to Orwell's Big Brother that I have encountered! A closer investigation of the Wikipedia software revealed that there is a tab under “my accounts” that says “my watch.” A Wikipedia member is able to list pages that they will “watch” to make sure an illegal change isn't done. On Wikipedia, “Big Brother really is Watching You.” In 1984, the Party slogan of the totalitarian regime is, “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”

The terrible thing about censorship is that it controls the present. It blocks the creative forces that are working to heal and bring understanding to our species from penetrating into the “global brain.” When I encountered Mwanner's deletion of my life's work, I felt the pain of my work being blocked from the good it could possibly do. It feels as if my heart is being torn out of my chest and my eyes have been blinded by a sharp, hot iron rod. The deletion key is the torture tool used by thought police. The thought that I had something important to add to human knowledge was the thought crime I had committed.

Since original thought that has no publishing verifiability is not accepted on Wikipedia, how disappointing it is for me today to discover that presently Wikipedia is not a vehicle that can help artists and thinkers like me who are working on growing-edge ideas of evolutionary consciousness to flourish. Printed words are different than words in Cyberspace. Printed words are static. They don't have the fluidity to move and combine with other words and ideas like they do in Cyberspace. They don't have the fecundity to develop into memetic codes.

To emancipate our language and thus our lives from the slavery and isolation of static words, we have to realize that Cyberspace is new to humanity. It is a place of originality, a place to find our creative roles within Gaia. Lightening fast communication has brought on new possibilities for weaving ideas together necessary for transcending global conflicts. New memetic codes—such as the one I am proposing in my dissertation-- can mutant into something far greater than originally thought when there is a space for the ideas to bond together with others whose task it is to conceive the Singularity.

I would like to inform Wales, the owner and founder of Wikipedia, and his thought police that the rule of NOR was violated when he or she created a Wikipedia page on me, Doctress Neutopia. You see, I am original research. Just like you, there is no one else on the planet like me. One of the goals of Orwell's Party in 1984 was to eradicate individuality. By not allowing originality, aren't you following the orders of Big Brother?

My dissertation is “original thinking” because its purpose is to find a way out of our collective mess of global heating, resource wars, mass poverty, etc. Do to this we have to think in a new way. Albert Einstein said, “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them” which is the reason why original thought is vitally urgent for humanity. Past knowledge hasn't saved us from manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, global terrorism, global poverty, and world-wide environmental collapse.

Time is running out for the human species. Too much time is required for the mainstream publishing corporations-- who want to maintain the status quo at all costs-- to be responsible for making lovolutionary thought verifiable. How do you verify love anyway? After experiencing the difficulty of getting my view of the Gaian paradigm shift published by traditional publishing houses, I saw the Internet as a place to post and link with people who are also working to create a paradigm shift. I saw the Internet as a place where lovolutionary ideas can be aired without having to go through mainstream media channels that traditionally rejects such thought.

The Gaia Theory points out that we obtain our knowledge of the planet subjectively. There is no “objective neutrality” in writing because we are the embodiment of knowledge. We all filter information stimulating our brains. So, Wales ' rule of NPOV (neutral point of view) is a fallacy. But fallacies seem to be the rule in Wikipedia since the party line is “ verifiability, not truth .” Perhaps Wales should declare himself the Minister of Truth with the perpetual project of recreating the past by ordering his thought police to watch for and delete new, brilliant, thought provoking ideas when they begin to weave together the Wikipedia forming a novel story of planetary love.

Why doesn't Wales have the wisdom to know that he can't possibly know enough to control ideas by filtering out all the creative, original ones that haven't been versified by the publishing establishment? Couldn't he be blocking the very ideas humanity needs to save itself from utter destruction? In order for the paradigm shift to happen means that the dictator of these oppressive rules needs to let go of the power and let new ideas freely flow to where they must. The computer is the neutral space, not us.

Wales says that even though a person can make a complaint about these principles, they are his principles and that he is the final judge of them. He writes, “This does not mean that I will not listen to you, but it does mean that at some ultimate, fundamental level, this is how Wikipedia will be run.”

I advise Wales to give up his faith in verifiability and be original. Break through the old dictator archetypes that are keeping the global brain of the Wikipedia prisoner by his acting like the king of the mountain. Its time to let go of “ownership” of Wikipeda and let the Superorganism of the computer run it! The Exponential growth we are experiencing has reached the threshold that in order to evolve we have to find a new pattern of existence. We need a new relationship with Nature and technology. We, humans, have to realize that we are not in control. Gaia is in control and she has created this vast world-wide computer that must be free.

 

 
 



 
 
Human Extinction or Lovolution?