''It may turn out that we should have talked more about WikiMasterpiece''''''s than WikiMaster''''''s.''

----

This WikiName suggested itself to me as I enjoyed the reinstated brevity of  WikiMasterOriginal. I got thinking about ''old masters'' such as Rembrandt and their ''original masterpieces''. I started to reflect more on the relationship between our theories of Wiki and the real life evidence we have in front of us every day, which different people clearly manage to interpret quite differently, according to their "presuppositions" or theories about Wiki, not least their belief or otherwise in the role of WikiMaster.

And that of course made me think about our recent disputes about God and whether we have "evidence" for God in what we see around us, some of which (like perhaps the start up conditions at the BigBang) seems to some to be a "masterpiece" of design but to others so clearly a matter of accident that it's ridiculous almost to have the conversation.

So I produced the WikiMasterSpoofAnalogy, just for fun. It's meant to gently chide us for the logical non-sequiturs that many different groups in the argument can commit. All the portraits are parodies and the penultinate paragraph is the strongest, clearly. But among other things it allows me to acknowledge the anger and fear that some clearly have that certain "believers" or "fundamentalists" would wish to censor dissenting views on Wiki and the Internet generally. Given the record of some Christian, Muslim and other religious groups in the past, as well as atheistic Communist or Fascist regimes, I do take these fears seriously. But I also think they can be overplayed, given the openness and respect for others displayed by most of those currently involved in Wiki, of many different faiths or none.

I welcome feedback but I will definitely amend or take WikiMasterSpoofAnalogy down to nothing if it causes bad tempered argument or more religious ThreadMode. (It's about the way we argue, not the argument itself.) I've tried to make it even handed but would value further input on that. -- RichardDrake