This wiki aims to document scholarly information on some politically sensitive issues that deserve to be better known. Finding reliable information on politically sensitive issues is a difficult task. “Mainstream” sources will either be unable or unwilling to offer the truth. On the other hand, there is the question of how reliable a non-mainstream source is. The reader, therefore, has little choice other than to attempt to discover the truth by browsing miscellaneous resources. We offer the reader one such source. We encourage readers to compare the arguments herein with the treatment of the same topics elsewhere.
To maintain quality, only select individuals are allowed to contribute to this wiki, and these individuals are recruited by invitation. Some entries will link to a specific discussion section where any reader can leave comments. If you have some tips, useful materials or suggestions to offer, then leave them here.
In theory, viewpoint neutrality is the minimum length description of all viewpoints. In practice, descriptions of experiences are far from theoretic perfection and are therefore subject to biases. When challenging the zeitgeist, or mainstream world views, as this wiki does, genuine neutrality will frequently appear biased. This makes the job of neutrality doubly difficult as good writing must take into account the biases of the target audience. This makes a good presentation of a neutral point of view embody biases that counteract the biases of the audience. Compounding this double difficulty are those genuine biases that the authors of this wiki bring with them. We believe the mainstream _is_ more biased on the issues of most vital concern to human societies and are therefore, cognizant of the aforementioned difficulties as we attempt to remedy some of that mainstream bias via this wiki.
Whereas one can approach a politically sensitive issue from an unbiased and neutral viewpoint, how does one convince others that one's argument is viewpoint neutral? One doesn't have to be a skilled writer to realize that a biased view can easily be written in a seemingly viewpoint-neutral manner. For instance, read about Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View". Impressive, isn't it? Now read just how “neutral” the 'Jewish tool' known as Wikipedia is.
Few people are going to believe that we are viewpoint neutral regardless of how meticulously we document and discuss different viewpoints. Therefore, we shall not bother to make any claims in this regard. We are simply trying to get to the truth – something postmodern philosophers, such as those upon which Wikipedia is based, refuse to reify. We will attempt to convince by citing evidence – including the evidence discussed in opposing viewpoints – and encouraging people to compare our arguments with alternative views. The readers will need to make up their own minds.
This is a brief note about the structure of the wiki for readers and contributors. A basic page within the wiki is of the type:
Namespace3 is a page that elaborates on something mentioned on the page namespace2 [URL of namespace2 is http://wiki.majorityrights.com/namespace1/namespace2]. Similarly, namespace2 provides the details for something mentioned on namespace1 [URL of namespace1 is http://wiki.majorityrights.com/namespace1].
Contributors should preferably not needlessly create root pages, i.e, pages like namespace1 in the example above. Use the site structure under the “Topics” section below as a guideline. A lot of what you would want to add would fit within one of the root namespaces already created.
Extensive information on the topics that this wiki will be addressing is already scattered all over the web, but the purpose of this wiki is to provide the reader with a quick summary or bird's eye view of important issues. This is the reason for the desired basic page structure mentioned above. The details for all major sections are supposed to be added to sub-pages as in namespace2 or namespace3. This will facilitate locating a sub-topic within a larger topic for someone who stumbles across this wiki.
A list of the topics that will be addressed is mentioned below. If you create a page on a new major topic, mention the topic below.
JAB comment: I suspect this should be organized under evolution as a broad topic. People need to understand the evolutionary consequences of their policies. JR comment: When there are enough topics on evolution, they can be organized in a separate section.
JAB comment: How far should we take this namespace thing? e.g. Communism:Leon Trotsky:Neoconservatism:Leo Strauss JR comment: Four-to-six levels should be fine as an upper limit. We don't want a url that would stretch across two monitors. In practice, a number of issues will fall under multiple categories and will have to be put into the best fit category, which should guard against excessively long urls.