EOB:About the origin of this site

From Encyclopedia of Buddhism
Revision as of 13:04, 10 June 2018 by Dorje108 (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

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 these articles much better. We should revert these 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.

These online debates went on for some time, and formal votes were held on key points of the debate. In the end, the editors were unable to reach a consensus. It seemed like each time a vote was taken, there was one more vote for John's position than for Dorje's and Robert's position.