Difference between revisions of "EOB:About the origin of this site"

From Encyclopedia of Buddhism
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 10: Line 10:
 
At this point, another editor on Wikipedia named [[User:Robertinventor|Robertinventor]] noticed what was going on, and he said:
 
At this point, another editor on Wikipedia named [[User:Robertinventor|Robertinventor]] noticed what was going on, and he said:
 
: "Hey, wait a minute. I like Dorje's versions of this articles much better. We should revert this articles back to Dorje's version."
 
: "Hey, wait a minute. I like Dorje's versions of this articles much better. We should revert this articles back to Dorje's version."
John disagreed, and much discussion between John and Robert ensued. Other Wikipedia editor joined the discussion. Some editors agree with John's approach. Some agreed with the approach of Dorje and Robert. Some editors were very understanding and said they appreciated both sides of the debate.
+
John disagreed, and much online discussion between John and Robert ensued. Other Wikipedia editor joined the discussion. Some editors agree with John's approach. Some agreed with the approach of Dorje and Robert. Some editors were very understanding and said they appreciated both sides of the debate.

Revision as of 12:58, 10 June 2018

A brief history of the origins of this site

A long time ago (about 2010) in a place far away (Brooklyn, New York), Dorje108 began editing articles on Buddhism on Wikipedia. Dorje liked editing the articles. Over the next several years, Dorje did a lot or research into the basic concepts of Buddhism (such as the Four Noble Truths, karma and interdependence), and Dorje basically rewrote some of these key articles on Buddhist concepts, as well as adding many new articles on Abhidharma-related topics. Things seem to be going well. Dorje was happy.

Then one day, another Wikipedia editor named John (not his real name) began rewriting the articles on the that Dorje had put so much effort into.

"Why are you doing this?" Dorje asked.
"You are not following the rules," John replied. "Your articles are full of quotes and references from contemporary Buddhist teachers who are not academically qualified. Your sources are biased. Only academics can be trusted to be non-biased. Because...they are academics."
"I disagree," Dorje said. "I think that you are misinterpreting the Wikipedia editorial guidelines. Also, in your editing, you seem to be referencing obscure academics without providing the proper context."
"I disagree with your assessment," John said. "My sources are better than your sources. You are not following the rules."

At this point, another editor on Wikipedia named Robertinventor noticed what was going on, and he said:

"Hey, wait a minute. I like Dorje's versions of this articles much better. We should revert this articles back to Dorje's version."

John disagreed, and much online discussion between John and Robert ensued. Other Wikipedia editor joined the discussion. Some editors agree with John's approach. Some agreed with the approach of Dorje and Robert. Some editors were very understanding and said they appreciated both sides of the debate.