Talk:Barrington Hall (Berkeley, California)

Most of the notable residents either have no source given or the source is just their homepage that makes no mention of Barrington Hall. Sources need to be provided or those names need to be removed since there is no way to confirm them. Same goes for the quotes of graffiti - I have no objection to including it if it is sourced, but without a source it can't stay in the article. There was consensus to remove it long ago (see the archived discussion) and it came out, but it seems to have snuck back in once less attention was being paid to the article. Right now the article has a ton of unsourced material and what looks like original research, which can't stay in the article. PLEASE do not remove tags or restore unsourced material unless you are providing a source as part of the edit. --Minderbinder (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The notable residents in particular are going to remain. I think the graffiti should remain as well, but I am less concerned about that. Perhaps photographs of the graffiti would be satisfactory sources for it? As far as sourcing the Notables goes - there are very good reasons to be super-careful about sourcing documentation in other articles. It simply doesn't apply here for the Notables in this article because the sourcing we've been using is the consensus of several dozen people who lived there with the people in question. This goes way beyond "original research." One of the greatest things about the Wikipedia is how common sense and flexibility can work together to produce real solutions to real problems. If two dozen people - including me - can attest to the fact that Andreas Floer lived at Barrington Hall, then gosh-darnit, we're just going to have to accept that! --AStanhope (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

WP FIRST PRINCIPLES: maintain that information CAN BE objectively referenced- but not that it necessarily "has been" or "must be- 'or else' "! To misconstrue this crucial point is to misread it- as well as to propose the elimination of the work of any generalists in framing WP articles. Thanks to AS for insisting on the essence of consensus reality for those unable to recognize this as the nature of scientific foundation- at a time when both are under attack by our kleptocracy. For life or money I cannot imagine why anyone would try to make an issue of particular- & obscure- graffitti in a house as big and frequently famed for graffiti as Barrington. Help me here, I may be a lowly generalist myself, but- it's not as if any BA graffitti has since become a defensible trademark, transformed into a corporate logo- or has it?? Exactly analogous is the Situationist "documentation" of their graffitti of 1968- or the even more tenous "documentation" of the Berlin Wall where socially-significant graffitti changed- ie., got painted over- daily. Until this centuries' digital processes, documentation of graffitti was simply economically impossible and it remains a challenge to communities under siege by taxations of every kind. In all situations graffitti is a community journal sans mediation. In such a situation clear argument can be made that the precise wording, attribution or origin of any slogan or graffitto is inherently unimportant. What is the agenda, Minderbinder- Ultimate Catch-22 of the soul? Likely there are also Americans who simply construe all depictions of graffitti as infringements on the failing notions of capital.

I would like to invite Minderbinder to join me in improving the WP situation re the disappointing proliferation of actual "fan sites" devoted to a commercial landscape. But a prominent institution as controversial as Barrington Hall could not fail to be notable- for controversy is itself defining, and frequently expanding. And given some notoreity, what is more likely than non-notability is that elements of controversy should be politically suppressed.

Oh yeah- I P.S.:

I was Andreas Floer's original Barrington roommate. This detail remains extractable from extant USCA files... but it was our 3-way relationship with Phread (who pursued Andreas into death) which bore the jagged scars which proves the reality. Being unintelligent and corporate masters, the USCA declined to officially document or grant licenses to graffitti, which compounds the dubious proposition of photographic 'evidence'; So, though we may consider him an artiste (as well as un connaisseur des plaisirs de Barrington) I am with some authority (ie., along with some mumber significant others) able to grant trivia minders that Dr. Floer tended to devote his written brilliance to his beautiful notebooks, and was himself finally not a noted graffitoligist. Hilarleo (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Andreas Floer is on official resident lists maintained by the Bancroft Library, as is noted in article now. -24.193.43.104 (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but information needs to be sourced, period. The notion that this article can somehow be an exception that allows original research is a bit alarming. --Minderbinder (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just ask Steve Gonzales. He lived there for several years. He'll be able to validate most of the information.

Then get busy putting a fact tag after every single word in every article, period. Every word is vulnerable to the accusation"original research" if it's not a direct quote and one wants to go around being a petty annoyance. Judgement calls about what doesn't need a footnote are obviously made, else *every word in the encyclopedia would have a footnote or be a direct quote.*-Latanya Hearst (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situationist_International#Quotations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.43.104 (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm reposting this section/comment here from far below. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.v [08:26, 16 February 2009] 00:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Joke: Q/ Why did Cointelpro never succeed in infiltrating a riot in progress? A/The devil's avocado. -Latanya Hearst (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Joke-2: Jay Dob - Qont Duit.

The original SItuation above is analogous to a point, but there's little possibility of it creating WP precedent. The main difference is that both articles have not been challenged. Thanks to the effort of the Editors, Barrington Hall#Graffiti now conforms to WP:Verifiability- and this page now quotes chapter and verse why. OTOH Situationist_International#Quotations does not consistently indicate sources. So pending any such Editor challenge and a subsequent "verification" (lol- via 1980's books filled with nothing more than 20-yr old memories, latter-day apologia and even more spotty photos) from the over-educated insular types who wrote the article for their own edification and greater social isolation, individual SI quotes may or may not be permissible. Luckily this Barrington Hall article should forever avoid the most troubling SItuation of being unreadable and useless for a popular audience. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.v 00:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Greetings, I'm Joel Rane, the librarian and author listed in Notable Residents on this wiki page. I can vouch for the fact that I lived in Barrington Hall, as did most of the people listed. I am aware that first hand knowledge is prohibited by SOME editors of Wikipedia, one reason why I no longer contribute to this information source. I am currently in charge of electronic resources for the Inglewood Public Library and have followed Wikipedia from the very early days, and am appalled by the zealousness of your editorial policies, one reason why I also no longer recommend the Wikipedia as an unbiased information source. It is well within your power to mark information as "unverified" or "questionable", but you go far beyond that when you delete other's people work based on your own undemocratic and unenlighted ideas regarding information in the 21st century. You are destroying what could have been a truly great information source and yes, I find your actions personally disgusting as a librarian. I hope that when a more open source of information comes along, you will continue to spend your vast free time busily cutting away at this less and less relevant wiki, which will keep your less and less relevant existance from troubling the rest of us.

I'd also like to mention that I never contributed to this page, and did not want to have the house that I loved part of your wiki in the first place. It is a gross violation of my privacy and I felt that anyone stupid enough to search for me on the Wikipedia didn't deserve to know about my life or my friends. But out of respect to my friends who have tried so hard to maintain this page, I salute you, Mr. Minderbinder, with my middle finger firmly extended. Have a nice day. Joel J. Rane (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

You have in fact contributed to this article: you added yourself (and a few other people) to the list in Oct, 2007... 66.92.14.198 (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think that I added Joel Rane to the article. --AStanhope (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, *Satan* added him to the article. Then God deleted him. Christ reverted, and got a third opinion form some Philistines, but there was no consensus. In the ensuing edit war, the page was protected by a million angels dancing on the head of a pin. Tammy Faye restored Satan's version after the angels got bored and went back to dronelike nitpicking over the minutiae of Pokemon articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.43.104 (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Pointy-headed editors inevitably tend to be over-represented. They exploit a WP flaw which allows such to make the most of small talents via use bots instead of brains. However life teaches us the way to improve things is to become involved. Conversely I have on occasion seen destoyed interests which I'd unfortunately withdrawn from. Others may have mentioned elsewhere that Mr Rane might himself tend to alientate the same associates who might otherwise care about deleting this page for the sake of his private endeavors. Is there even any appropriate Greek tragedy?

Ew..."private endeavors"? Joel may or may not have more to say (see below) than he allows- we'll see. So in the spirit of full participation and as immolation for any WP 1st-Person squeamishness Joel feels**, I offer- from the Sacred Email Achives of Google Mail dated 15Feb2009 [& with my marginalia]...

///// Private, irrelevant email removed ///// There's no reason to post that email here. --AStanhope (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC) /////Reply

AStanhope, your claims for justifying censorship are beyond flawed. Obviously I disagree with you and your pal. But it is your behavior which appears entirely at odds with the Co-op and Barrington ways. Censorship is among the crassest of Fed behaviors- utterly Un-OY. Mr. Rane doubtless knows better- and knows best how to call out his own rhetorhical dogs- when he wants them. Mr. Rane has actually made clear to myself and his many associates elsewhere what he feels of some who have previously attempted to intervene in his contretemps; and he has made clear everywhere in his life's work what he feels of those who'd unilaterally censor, Bowlderize, or revert other's writing. I quite agree with his liberal views concerning letters and arts. Despite your sentiments and protestations for some imagined chivalry, the reactionary way ain't cool- not at all.

Above all I -among others- do expect civilized people to present valid and reasoned argument before even discussing correction of others. Almost every Western democracy has had to admit censorship is onvalid. Your censorship action fails the test of the civilized:

Your notions of a primal "privacy" are obscure, Editor. Do they indicate some bureaucratic ideology? But this is not to be found on our Wikipedia:List of policies. WP simply is not a place where 'the names are changed to protect the innocent'. Editors engaged in debate and personal promotions here are offerred no defense of inherent "privacy" as you construe it- not that you cite any WP policy at all. I've neither promoted nor broached any matters of Harrassment, Threat, nor Libel... Or do you cobstrue someCopyright matter?

I don't know how you define any email sent to a class of persons concerned with the subject of my former co-op's WP representation (nor my personally received correspondance) as a "private" matter. Every relevant precedent of USA law tells us that letters received are letters pwned. You may do with your copy exactly as you wish. By the terms of WP the allegation of "privacy" is inappropriate; by tort law there is nothing inherently "private" at issue here- unless it's loyalty to capitalist moralizing.

What WP does conceivably, relevantly forbid are Personal Attacks. And the intent of what I wrote and quoted was obviously not to intimidate any "person" but only to ID & counter the deceit I allege. I do not reveal anything of anyone's "personal" identity. I could not; Mr. Rane already revealed himself. & I actually rather respect Mr Rane's expressions as he respects mine- as suitable media for a precise and close rhetorical argument.

OTOH it's only via bizarre and desperate overreaching- if not a wholly disingenuous and personal interest- that one can claim this email is "irrelevant"... Which will it be? Because it certainty is relevant. Mr. Rane's post to me inherently and directly concerns his arguments re: the continued existence of the Barrington Hall page and this talk page. Mr Rane makes clear therein how and why he has ulterior as well as potential profit motive for asking this page be removed. Such crucial facts are otherwise hidden from those here he's asked here to adjudicate this request. QED, and contrary to a reactionary claim, his post is "relevant".

I don't pander with those who censor. Your evident squeamishness concerning an imaginary encyclopedic privacy has no relevance to WP process. I suggest archaic feelings of suppression may in the future be profitably kept to yourself until better processed. In the same spirit I (as w/others already named) prefer editors to assess & revert their own embarrassment. I will refer this incident to the WP advisors' process.

Hey,L.E.O.. Hilarleo 07:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Meanwhile this following (highly similar to the material previously unilaterally censored by User:Astanhope above) concerns the id of an individual I will noinate "Fast Freddie" and a subsidiary invention of his subconscious, "OY".

On 16February 2009, Fast Freddy wrote:

Subject: Barrington Hall page on Wikipedia

Greetings, Believers-

If you navigate to the Barrington Hall page at wikipedia:

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://en.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBarrington_Hall

You'll see at the top that a Wikipedia editor has challenged it once again.

[An 'editor'? 'At the top'?? Heavy WP moj'...]

I suspect that most of the page will soon be taken down.

[LOLs. This community's survived boring BS before; it will survive yer willfull ignoring]

In fact, if you click on the word "Discussion" at the top of the wiki page, you'll see such amazing efforts to provoke that reaction.

[Ew? Click 'Discussion' for magic? I've seen discrete 'editors'- ie., individuals- frustrate mediators into haole paralysis, but never vanish pages- not w/o some legal mojo. F.Reddy cant get this page by begging- But Red can get his name took out w/ jest a lil' request. Go ahead, Real.]

I am not completely happy that ANYTHING about Barrington Hall is on the Wikipedia.

[Welcome to WP, Editor]

But "there is another"...for a few years a friend has owned the domain

"http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.californiawiki.org",

[ FaceBook sells domains? The matter of internet 2nd & 3rd party ownership is an evolving and squiqqly affair]

-with the intention of creating a tour guide. I've been told for years by Big Red that my encyclopedic knowledge of LA would make a ripping book (blush),

[Our chapbook author's parentals' compliment- How faux-naif .

F.Reddy does have some broad experience of Cali locations; his posts & sentiments here express the depths of his sediments]

but I think the wiki is a better format than a book.

[You may seek a second opinion on that... (if you havent already) chat up an accountant]

F.Reddy's Friend got the MediaWiki software up and working, and thanks to this complaint at Wikipedia he got a first page up:

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.californiawiki.org%2Fwiki%2FBarrington_Hall

Yeah, so he just stole all the code from Wikipedia,

[considering the material's freely available, this appears a twisted characterization but is no doubt aptly Freudian]

but what I'd like to do is make this the REAL Barrington page.

[ie., FAST FREDDY'S?]

Once I figure out how to configure the user permissions,

[U & FB]

I'd like to create a user group just to edit this page. In fact, I'd kinda like to create a user group just to SEE this page, but I'll open that one up in the discussion board. Please use the discussion board rather than individually replying to this message.

I want California Wiki to be a personal page, with individual stories and named authors, and it will be "closed", so that only people I know (or perhaps that know them) can add to it. For now the Barrington Hall page is wide open...in case you can't contain yourself. Thanks and if I have blown you a kiss yet...smack!

- Go Fast Freddy!!

So Mr. Fast Freddy dislikes competitors? He insists on being the sole REAL? Yet he now will depend on contributors. Perhaps some lack of competition half-way explains in why he believes his contributors' posts in Facebook will become 'his' and not FB's- bon chance. Typically he who pays the online piper has the hidden small print to call this tune. At least now there's now some evidence of precedence & intention here.

-leo "all that smacks is not sweet" sullivan

(:**btw there's a cure which involves no chemical: Barringtonia- & anything and everything Barrington Hall - should be represented in the Bancroft Library's Barrington Collection. This is the scary-fun Sanctum Sanctorum of Cal; and deserves yhe patronage of all CalBears [& the Bancroft has returned to the permanent, hermetically-controlled underground location @north end of the Doe Library complex]. Please consider gifting all your USCA/BA ephemera to the Bancroft in your wills- your grandkids sure wont care.) Hilarleo

Hey,L.E.O. [02:46, 16 February] 07:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Just a minor clarification... Joel's link to CALIFORNIAWIKI.ORG was likely *written* by Joel as CALIFORNIAWIKI.COM, but because the note was sent through Facebook's "Message the whole group" feature, Facebook altered the URL to include a Facebook clickthrough so that Facebook can warn people clicking on the link that by doing so, they are leaving the "safety" of Facebook. So - in reality CALIFORNIAWIKI.ORG has nothing whatsoever to do with Facebook. --AStanhope (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

AS: Your rationale which you posted at [[User talk:Hilarleo#but 1st (and which post I recommend to anyone concerned with issues this page raises) is no more rational than the most sentimental, reactionary impulse on display here. "We" post nothing. *I* post for my own ends, but again you misconstrue argument as personal attack- the kind of thing you evidently feel yourself. Do not project your issues on me. OTOH IF you rilly need to infantilize Joel, pull the damn page down and feed it to his Da's ambitions as he demands. It will be easily done.

And as for your "idiot" (where, btw, such language is more objective personal attack on Editor Minderbinder than anything I require- b/c I- and he- offer valid arguments)- This article is poorly sourced according to the current development of WP guidelines, and Mb serves "Us" well to illustrate that it's common knowledge. Only a fool takes a position he can't win. Your defense of this page is degrading. It's disingenuous of you to argue your preferred end justifies every discourtesy you choose to employ against those who oppose your whims. The blatant connaivance speaks for itself.

In spite of- or b/c of the liberal cant, I begin to suspect your statements have yet to be bothered with reflection anywhere near up to the issues you encounter. You blame the messenger, but the problems humans face are not produced by any adversary. Hilarleo

I don't remember calling anyone specific an idiot. I think you and I have started off on the wrong foot here, Leo. I would like to confess to my crimes and ask for mercy from the court. --AStanhope (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

You are correct- "jerks" was your term for those who demand more than you are prepared to give, not "idiot". Your urge to confession though is specious- You're one of those who find your desired end justifies all your means. If you had achieved some breakthrough concerning some hypocrisy here, you'd un-censor. 70.137.174.252 (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situationist_International#Quotations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.43.104 (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

You've become ebedded within my web of hierarchical topicality. Any subsequent topic will gain precedence by wiki-http imitation of my highest level:

=Lasciate ogne... ch'intrate= .

But I suggest for the sake of sense this post belongs not here, but up higher as the 2nd topic- where I've repo'd it... Please feel free to delete the one or the other. ^Hey,L.E.O. 14:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

When Mr. Dick Wolf lensed the BA 'Disorientation' film "Phread & Leo (Make Friends!)" There was no heroin on-set. There is nothing even ID'd as heroin in the film. I wrote the film, and heroin was not called for. And I was there. There was a short fast-motion scene concerning substance abuse, referring to obsessive consumption- & aphrodisiacs as objectified sex. Yhe humor was undeveloped and did not leave the screen. The piece is not "about heroin" or anything external. The wonderfully abstract momentumn of 'Phread & Leo' comes from a formula: "Friendship" = "Loyalty" + "Fun" . _HilarLeo ^Hey,L.E.O. [16 February 2009 (UTC)]02:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just a heads up, because of the continued insistence that this article should be an exception to WP:NOR, I have linked this page at Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard#Barrington_Hall. --Minderbinder (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think Hilarleo said it best here--what you are proposing is not the elimination of "original research," but "the elimination of the work of any generalists in framing WP articles." You also appear to have 1) no idea about this subject at all 2) an extremely hostile attitude towards it, and anyone who knows anything about it. If there were any actual "original research" in this article, you wouldn't know where it is, not because you are not an expert in this subject, but because you have never contributed anything to the article or read any of the references. You merely seem intent on persecuting two lists of factual information cited from primary sources (which make no interpretative claims whatsoever). What you are doing is about as useful to general encyclopedia readers as going into an article about a novel or plot of a tv series and claiming every word of the synopsis is "original research" not because you didn't like the book or tv show--which you never saw--but because you hate the sort of person who wrote it. -Latanya Hearst (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I also linked this article from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Barrington Hall because of doubts about the "miscellany" source. Cheers. --Minderbinder (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have to agree. Your objections elicited specious argument. OTOH in pursuing this it becomes rather clear that broad policy- say

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and other questionable sources can already fairly address the current objections re WP:NOR, and support the article largely as it stands. I offer more detailed rationale in the above cited Noticeboard. Essentially such "Questionable sources", like 1st person sources, are kosher in limited WP use.

However:

At this point, the existence of the the Barrington Miscellany at Bancroft Library has been challenged. It is an obligation of these citing parties to respond. I suggest it should be but a simple matter for these editors to demonstrate the existence of both

1). the Barrington Miscellany at Bancroft Library, and

2). the relevant content of that Miscellany, or state why this is impossible.

- Alternatively, it may be more expedient to change the attribution of the graffiti to on-line sources.

My next suggestion could require more time in order to access memories for appropriate journalist sources... Or such sources may already lie within the material, as above. But I also feel (mostly due to the consistency of Minderbinder) that any list of of Barrington graffitti now owes WP the formality (and some additional Good Faith courtesy) of explicit 2nd/3rd-party support re WP:Notability of the material cited from the Miscellany. I also suggest that existing expressions of quantity as discrete, qualifying qualities be reviewed per "cultural or artistic notability".

I suggest such additions will address all but semantic objections to the challenged material.

Agreed? Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.v 00:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

 *  *  *  *  *  *

1 week later- Lawrence T. & I visited an archivist at [[http://library.berkeley.edu The Bancroft Library]] last week to discuss imaging and archiving a donation of his run of Barrington Bulls. RL was also invited to donate some elaborate 'dead head' type clothing pieces. We did not request the actual archive, but we plan to return in some weeks to review the material with the archivist. We've also been offered the opportunity to pursue more complete cataloging of the archive. But I have yet to discuss the possibility of imaging the complete collection for the Library. Archivist Mr. David Farrel also mentioned his sincere regard for one of the article's principal Editors, Ms. Cynthia Walker.

TO FIND THE CATALOG RECORD OF THE "Barrington Hall miscellany" access UCB's [PATHFINDER CATALOG] directly or via [The Bancroft Library]. Perform a title keyword search for "Barrington" and limit your search to the location "UARC" (i.e., University Archives). This is the current record accessed 2009.03.01:

Barrington Hall miscellany, ca. 1975-1990.<1974>

Description: 1 box (.4 linear ft.)

Notes: Contains policy statements, newsletters, arbitration efforts, etc., about this controversial house of the University of California Students Cooperative Association which closed in 1990. There are some earlier newsletters and other materials in a University Student Cooperative Association miscellany (308w.U592.misc).

Subject Headings: Student cooperatives -- California -- Berkeley.

Location(s): UC Archives 308w.U592.bar

Non-circulating; may be used only in The Bancroft Library

It seems our [User:Minderbinder|Minder]] has not pulled himself away from the "LOST" zone in at least 7 days to respond to the latest justification of the material...So- What's the record? Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.v 23:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm? "LOST"? I'm not sure what you're talking about. I haven't been on WP much lately, so sue me. My question about the archive is about whether it actually contains the material the article is sourcing to it. Were you able to confirm that? --Minderbinder (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

re the tags above (ie 'low importance')- That's probly not a favorite opinion here. Co-ops should ceryainly represent a broad basic part of socialist/anarchist analysis of alternatives to New World Order /state manipulation of middle-class values; & the 9th circuit's bit about BA "ramparts" opens the doors to discussing why BA may be particularly representative.

Also we should be free to develop our experience of BA as an example of an idealized environment for the arts of conversation, rhetoric & as a broadly counter-culture aesthetic lab. In the present article this is demonstrated mainly by the lawsuit & the narcotics issues (pointless to discuss more broadly in the NWO-controlled WP/political environment, until there's directly incriminating evidence). But isn't there any discussion avaiable of BA as a haven developing lives of productive experimentation within the sex/drug/gypsy-crasher/anarchist bleeding edge juxtaposed to a mid-80's anti-life-choices Reagan Revolution landslide into the Contra/drug war-E.V.I.L. of Ollie North doing TV drag? Hello! Even Tania stayed in #411 when the SLA was on the lam.Right? Hello. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.v [22Feb2009] 14:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

We face inherent interference with info which "wants 2B 'free'". Yay! All become agents of the inevitable. Other vectors have already projected our coming cultural crisis. Meta:Wikimedia:Worst cases- C'est formidable. This piece describes a 'True' WP within WP's original intentions- which included being BETTER THAN. 'Original Wiki' was to be "able to tell the 'truth about science' " (lol, rofl) zomgahh.

WP betrays its ideals when it editors demand documentation which historically status-quos control. Therefore any struggle to the next stage of radical NPOV requires response on from same vectors. What is now open to us is not policy but consensus- the broad cultural agenda, an activist 'Editorial action center'. This is naive in the sickest sense
But we arrive on rare opportunity. Rulers gird against revolution. Economic collapse is always greater than corporate-controlled governments could allow. It's world-wide- Corporations have already moved the means of production away to their pocket 'democracies'; all culture of craft followed. Already imports to the US are more expensive. Beyond the eco-catastrophe lies the opportunity of the rest of the world. The longer eco-depression ransoms the potential of the next generations, the further revolutions will be pushed into local peaks. So in organized struggle against Worst cases- Tunnel vision I propose first to deal with the debris of a deleted "WikiProject Peace". 'Co-opers are requested to comment concerning direction and progress of an approach which begins with: Hilarleo/Countercultures, 'verifiable sources' & WP: Project Peace . Thanks for your time. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O.v [23 February 2009] 19:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Reply