Wikipedia and Kt66
Here are some comments from some neutral editors who Kt66 himself had invited to review the article in 2006. At that time, Kt66 was the main editor of the article.
- So all together I have asked now for their opinions: four WP editors: (Humanum/Excellentone/Clockwork/Amerique) this seems to be fair, I think. --Kt66 23:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think that the way this article is presented is heavily weighted in favour of the opinions of Kay - indeed I would argue that -UNDUE WEIGHT- has been given to his views. ... I find the whole article riddled with opinion presented as fact ... Excellentone 22:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've been reading over this article, and observing the dynamics of its editors for a few weeks, and I've been forced to reach an inevitable conclusion. ... I'm going to be very frank, but this article has tended away from a balanced description of the history and practices NKT, and has begin to lean very heavily into an article more accurately described as "David Kay's History and Opinion of NKT". I'm very concerned that the opinions and viewpoints of a relatively small number of individuals is drawn upon as the source material for a large portion of the article, which is representative of the point of view of a single editor who, in his determination to ensure that the article fully descibes his own perspective, has dominated the editing process. ... – ClockworkSoul 00:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I agree with Clockworksoul that while there is such a strong agenda other than presenting facts the article cannot move forward. I hope that everyone involved can remain friends and overcome extreme views. Excellentone 13:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Ask yourself this question: if you opened an encyclopedia and found this article what would you think of the encyclopedia? that's what I have been trying to do and I think I would be very surprised to find an article based so heavily on the work of a previously unpublished, previously unheard of academic writing his Phd thesis, not to mention a ten year old newspaper article...honestly if you trawl the internet for long enough you can probably find obscure references for any point you are trying to make. If you check the timeline here you'll find almost all of the references are ten years out of date and I don't think it's particularly helpful to the reader to have to search google books or part with £70 to check the arguments being quoted so heavily. It might also be worth noting that David Kay has been criticized in the academic press for amongst other things his fieldwork and for failing to document his sources Review by Inken Proh Since you mention the BBC website it is also worth raising the point that Kt66 has carried his crusade to that arena too and has succeeded in having alterations made on their page to bring it in line with the Wikipedia article he has largely written.I firmly believe that this article has been a waste of everyone's time for far too long already and in addition to the arguments I have put forward it is the compassionate thing to do to delete it.Excellentone 23:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- It seems that most of the editors agree that the NPOV is violated in the current article on the NKT -- Marpa 00:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)