Startling Concept Essay but Bemusing Background

---

---

I believe that the users of Wikipedia will approve my observation that many of the philosophy, arithmetic and concept articles are really of good quality. One can learn from them. It is very difficult to learn and imbibe the actual meaning of concepts in the field of sciences. You have to read again and again the same thing and as many elaboration on a concept in order to fully appreciate the meaning behind the concept. Some of the articles in these categories on Wikipedia are worth praising.

However, today I came across an article on Open System and Closed System which covered the definition for different field of knowledge. I was really impressed by the opening lines. I reached this article while I was trying to search for Reinhart Koselleck, a theorist in History. But this article has studied the relevance of concept of open system and closed system for all the sciences. Before, I read further, as it is a practice with me, I tried to check the discussion and also the edit history. There was no discussion as such. However, in edit section, I found that it was a fresh article which was just started in the month of April 2009. The writer is one Nbaig. I tried to check the User link. I found that the same article appears there also. Similarly, in the Discussion section of the User, I found that he was well received by one Marcel Douwe Dekker but again below his invitation and welcome message the article again reappeared. It is surprising. Should the Wikipedia veteran Editors look into this incongruity!? It must be taking unnecessary space on their server. I have yet to read the whole article but this feature has diverted my attention.

---

---

Open and closed systems in social science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

---

Wikipedia as a Grievance Board

---

---

The article in question is Orissa IIT Controversy. As per the edit records, earlier probably it was called 'Educational Neglect of Orissa'.

The most aggressive editor writes or signs himself as SDass.

Even on the Discussion panel, a very feeble protest as well amazement have been registered about the purpose as well as the propriety of such an article on an encyclopaedia even if it is wikipedia.

There are nearly 62 references in the article. There is one theme. The theme is that the Government of India is bend upon ruining Orissa. The person who has written the article has really done a job. I do not know about the authenticity of the data which he has provided even if there are 62 references. I just look at the data and find that Goa, Tripura and Sikkim are more neglected states as compared to Orissa. However, the way it is written only in favour of one state, it is really deplorable because the author feels that they are the smaller states. It is bad if Orissa is given step motherly treatment but it is equally unjustifiable to make an argument in your favour by underrating the existence of other states with in the same country.

I am amazed to find such an article here on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has well worded and well laid out guidelines about the choice of topics. But in case of India, it is trying to play new BBC which always sees slums in India. (Recently they also see Patels.)

There is a charter of citizens on Indian Image site. It invites the grievance of the citizens which can be lodged with Ministry of Personal Affairs, Public Grievance and Pension.

Then there is Indian Media which is quite active in such type of Muckraking reporting. There are numerous pressures groups which could be approached.

However, the person has found Wikipedia also as a place of showing his angst. He really suffers pain for the poverty and educational neglect of the Kalinga. The Indian Government must get attentive because soon such a person may go out and start a separatist movement even in the name of Kalinga or Kharvela as his hero.

Wikipedia has allowed such a writing on its site. Wikipedia is presently rich with such articles for which it is being sought. There are hidden advertisement attempts also but they could be overlooked. There are some objectionable and unjustifiable presentation of facts and figures concerning India which are allowed in name of allowing counter views. (Kindly check the map of India, especially the state of Arunanchal Pardesh which has been shown as disputed.)

The article should be removed. There is clear POV.

For reference check that following link if it remains there.

Orissa IIT Controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

---

Mohammed Alim Khan : A new browsing

---

---

I reached the article through a different route. I call it a new route. However, I am not going to make a category for it.

Well, there are other links on the main page which can also be used for general browsing. There are categories displayed on the upper side. Among those categories, there is link to Biography.

Being a student of history, biography attracts. Biographies are generally accepted as a part of literature of the language in which it is written and historians use it as source. Mere biography is not considered history as such. That is other thing that in some definitions, History is generally rated as a subject which is based on biographies. Well, that is now fully discarded and such an approach is generally adopted while writing political history.

The article was shown under selected portrait.

Is it really a photograph of Mohammed Alim Khan?

I was attracted towards it because in a small snippet it was written that Emir ruled over Bukhara. Bukhara as a name of a place appears during the Medieval History of India. But, we generally do not find much details on the background of the people of that period. In case of A L Srivastva, I read with full attention the activities of Babar before he became the ruler of Kabul. However, similar details are not found as such.

I was highly disappointed with the contents of this article. The discussion virtually reflects the objections of even general readers who had participated in developing this article. First of the details of the family background of Emir is doubtful but it is displayed. On the discussion section, the right objection has been raised. Similarly, the very authenticity of the photograph is questioned and there is a point. However, there is no one there to authenticate it. Rather great stress is given to the caption or rather detail provided under the photograph. It is shown to have been clicked in 1911. But, the quality of photograph seems to be result of latest technology. Even Wilson, or for that Churchill or any other leader from 1910 to 1945 were not lucky to have such a photograph.

The contents are highly doubtful in nature.

Mohammed Alim Khan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia