User:Bctnry
It's easy to manipulate Wikipedia, you just need to know how to lie.
Criticism of Wikipedia <-- read this before you open that mouth of yours.
I don't even have to proof that myself - it's a thing that has happened again and again and again and again. You can do anything without retaliation if you know how to lie and when to lie, and the "good-faith" people here will have zero idea... they banned seven of them, guess how many of them are still here... If you're an administrator, normal users are basically powerless in front of you; and if you have a team of administrators who'll back you up, you're basically invincible... they'll say your source is not trustworthy enough or neutral enough when they themselves cite biased source, and if you try to argue, they'll say that you're here to argue instead of contribute, and then they'll ban you. If you somehow are the guy in question, then they'll say you are not a trustworthy 3rd-party source and disregard everything you say. This is how they operate. A lot of their rules are like this - designed to be as neutral as possible at face value but the easiest to manipulate for the ones who have the power...
Wikipedia does not have the feature to block people from viewing your page, so you can't even vent on your own user page should an admin decides to have a beef with you - you can't escape from their petty rage and inherently-flawed sense of justice. Are you happy now? Are you really happy that you got to exercise your power? Do you truly feel like you are some sort of "protector of knowledge"? Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. Are you going to ban this account because you don't like what I'm saying, citing whichever previously-established bureaucratic rules this hell of an establishment have, or are you just going to say that you're quote-unquote "concerned" about my mental health and justify your ban by claiming that this would give me a chance to calm down? You are not better than me - you never were. I'm *moves* ahead of you, the only thing that separates me from you is the fact that I don't have the power but you somehow have. God forbid someone comes along and see through every single little trick of yours.
Disgusting. You people make me wanna puke. Disgusting hypocrites. So many people edit with their own political agenda, but you accepted them only because they know how to play and twist things by your "good standing" rules. I hope every single one of you suffer grave unrecoverable real-life circumstances.
Appeal to Canon
[edit]Appeal to Canon refers to the tendency of individuals and societies to accept established narratives, systems, and structures as inherently correct or morally justified simply because they are dominant or longstanding. This phenomenon is particularly prominent in colonial contexts, where the established "canon" often reflects the perspectives and interests of colonial or hegemonic powers. The appeal to canon becomes a barrier to transformative change, as the public is conditioned to view deviations from established narratives as suspect or illegitimate.
Key characteristics of the appeal to canon include:
- Deference to Authority: People tend to trust institutions, scholars, and systems that propagate the Canon, often without critically examining their biases or origins.
- Delegitimization of Alternatives: New or counter-narratives are often labeled as radical, unscientific, or conspiratorial, making it difficult for marginalized voices to gain traction.
- Social Reinforcement: The collective acceptance of the Canon creates a feedback loop, where deviation is punished or dismissed, further entrenching dominant narratives.
By perpetuating the appeal to canon, societies maintain the dominance of existing power structures, often to the detriment of marginalized communities seeking justice or recognition.