Whereas most Wikis adopt a Neutral Point of View, the Miriadic Wiki takes a more active stance in veiwing the world, considering all points of view, and all possiblities, and this is considered the standard for this wiki, called Miriadic Point of View (or Miriadic POV or simply MPOV). This page will attempt to outline the basics of how you can write an article in Miriadic POV.
- 1 Bias
- 2 The Opposite of Skepticism
- 3 Fact, Opinions, and Dissent
- 4 Objectivity and Its Omission of The Possible
- 5 The Importance of Information
- 6 POV Forks
- 7 The Nature of Truth
- 8 The Value of Research, Even if it is Wrong
- 9 Tone of Article
- 10 Facts Speak For Themselves, But Rarely Speak Truth
- 11 Attribution to Molar Mountre's Claims
- 12 Presentation of Channelled Material as Fact
- 13 Psuedoscience Does Not Exist
- 14 Defining the Borders of Religion
It goes without saying that this Wiki is not without Bias. It is written for and by all those who seek truth by searching the shadows of language. It is written for those who seek to understand and know more about the viewpoint of magickians, philosophers, and other seekers of the Light of Truth. While it is certainly seeking to be irreverent in its tone and the presentation of its subject matter, it is not seeking to do so in a negative way. It is a play of words, an injection of collaboration into the magickal which we seek, not a mere tome of dusty facts and correspondence charts, though we do need those, too.
We are biased towards Freedom, that is, towards the expression of the Soul and its various organs, like Will, the Mind, the Heart, and the Body, and not towards any political, religious, or national organization which seeks to place borders on knowledge, on information, and life. We are biased towards the wierd, the unproven, and the unreal. We are biased towards the magickal, the mystical, and the invisible.
How do we create such a massive tome without undue bickering? Every page has a discussion tab, and I suggest it be used to bring up any possible debate about any disputed subject. If you don't agree, don't mutilate the page, bring it up for discussion. That is the way to be civil. If you don't understand the bias of an article, bring it up for discussion.
The Opposite of Skepticism
The bottom line is that we are not necessarily about provable facts. However, this does not mean that you can put up your own grand unified field theories up on these pages. What it does mean is that you can put widely held beliefs that are often critically looked at or which people regard with skepticism, and write as much as is known about that subject, from that subject's point of view.
The idea is not to create a wiki that is full of holes or omissions in possibility. But don't get crazy. We don't need pages on the Spiritual Beliefs of Smurfs. Something that is literarily relevent, however, like Bokononism, makes for an example article. There are a lot of articles that are open to different types of interpretation. Explore these and boldly update them!
Fact, Opinions, and Dissent
It is perfectly fine to present facts. It is perfectly fine to present opinions, as long as they are not your own, and you can cite where these opinions have come from.
Dissenting opinions, also, can be placed within an article or be given their own articles to play with, depending how long a dissenting section gets...
Objectivity and Its Omission of The Possible
Objectivity may be useful for the fact seeker, but for the magickian, it omits much possibility and observations that may be lost. Too much information is missing from objective articles because it would seem that it would bias the article. Objectivity in writing articles is preferred, though. Don't get crazy. Or we'll have to make an example of your 'crazy article'.