Two of the f’ers just circlejerked themselves on the page:
Arizona settlements[edit]
Thanks for your edit to Achi, Arizona and other nearby settlements. I’ve been making several corrections to these same articles, and at Benson, Arizona, I have asked for an opinion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Magnolia677, first, thanks for all the work you do on WP, especially on AZ articles. Second, yes this particular editor does have a habit of adding uncited material to articles. I had to undo about a dozen or so edit of theirs yesterday. I also noticed the source used at Benson, and am glad you brought it up at WP:NORN. I’ll leave my thoughts on the issue there. Will be interested to see the outcome.Onel5969 TT me 16:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Eff Wikipedia
They're obviously not worth a bucket of cold goat phlegm
It’s obvious from that series of posts that you have a group of self-congratulating, fiefdom guards who don’t really understand the advancement of knowledge or that an encyclopedia is merely, at heart, a compendium of original research. This comes out of our public school teaching that you can only regurgitate what you’ve been taught, no original thinking allowed. You can only report on what someone else has already done or said. Even fifty years ago, I saw the signs of hide-bound thought being clamped down. No matter how tight my logic chain of original thought, no matter what level of proof I could argue, I would inevitably be marked down in grade for NOT SOURCING WHAT I WAS PROPOSING OR ARGUING FROM SOME OTHER AUTHORITY!
It was inevitable that original thought or research was to be clamped down on unless it supposedly came from some one with the proper credentials, someone with some alphabet soup behind their name, otherwise, these snobs would not accept it. Logic and proof, even presented before their eyes was not acceptable, because they’d been taught it had to be approved by the hoary anointed high priests of what ever field the subject was. It did not matter that these nabobs of orthodoxy were often protecting fiefdoms of long debunked and disproven drivel, often outdated by much more recent discoveries, or were politically motivated incompetents, long past their prime, just protecting their prior, but now disproved, or out-dated contributions, often fearful their income streams from textbooks they authored would be curtailed or even ended, bypassed in favor of more up-to-date scholarship. They’ve put themselves in the position of gatekeepers, —Jonathan Swift’s "flappers" for the members of their disciplines, who flap the ears of their peers if they think they should hear something, or flap their lips if they think the peers should say anything—who must be appeased with the approval of peer-review and citation in new thoughts in their fields even if it causes stagnation or even the complete blockade of new thinking.
What these WP editors fail to grasp is that today, something approaching 70%-80% of published academic research articles are twaddle, faked research to meet the "publish or perish" demands of academia. There isn’t any facts or truth in them. . . and very little original factual research. Even the peer-review is a joke. It’s more of the same self-congratulating, circle of knowing winking at each other being published in journals that exist merely to publish twaddle.