Userboxes This user has been on Wikipedia for 21 years, 1 month and 8 days.

After leaving school, headed to the East. Travelled widely and ended up in India. I visited the Osho Commune in Pune, India and ended up staying there for some years. And the Osho related groups here are one of my interests.

Of course, it is a truism to say that history is written by the winners. But true nonetheless. But what of the other side of the coin, what of "Alternative Histories"?

My time with Osho and living in the Osho community meant that often I saw events from an inside perspective. Sometimes reading a newspaper article about an event that I was involved in could be quite surreal. Not that the newspapers necessarily lied (although some did) but the way information is presented is often distorted, either to fit with editorial guidelines, or simply to sell more copies. And it is not just newspapers, other publications also had their agendas, either to sell a book, obtain academic funding or support a political position. So much so that it could have been a different event altogether.

Some subjects can be discussed in terms of 'facts'. The location of Bermuda, the number of protons in a carbon atom, the distance from London to New York are all 'facts' that are hard to argue with. And these are all subjects that Wikipedia is admirably suited for, where discrepancies can be discussed and ironed out, resulting in a article that is suitable for an encyclopedia.

History, however, is another matter. There is no ultimate 'truth' to most histories and when a history is written, it is the views and opinions of the writer. If the writer is a good writer, he will be as objective as possible and the history will be considered a good history. Although he will have to recognise that his history will possibly be based on interviews or reports that are again non-objective views and opinions. When a history, biography or event is written about in the Wikipedia then it is possible for all sides to put their opinions, recollections, views etc. into the article, but this doesn't work. It would result in multiple articles on the same event, not necessarily agreeing with each other. The Wikipedia has no way of dealing with this: only one article can exist, only one point of view. Turning an article into a discussion is not a way forward (and is against Wikipeida guidelines).

Wikipedia's way of dealing with this situation is to suggest that articles cite reliable published sources. This means that 'conventional' history takes precedence over any alternatives, unless those alternatives are well sourced. In particular, it means that first person accounts are not allowed as they cannot be verified. Unless they agree with the conventional history of course.

So, what to do with these alternative histories? In my view, they are sometimes equally valid. At the very least, they provide an interesting perspective on an event. Wikipedia's only mechanism for dealing with this is to provide discussion pages where alternative ideas can be discussed, although care must be taken not to turn the discussion pages into an open forum. Often when I'm researching a subject, the discussion pages contain some very interesting information, or at least, some pointers to ideas that could be worth following up.

I would like to see a more formal gathering space for alternative histories. Maybe historical and biographical articles could have sections (like discussion archives) called 'Alternative 1' etc. Then the primary and the alternatives would each contain a 'version' of history. Of course, the alternatives wouldn't be complete fantasy, they would still need to be sourced. But at least they would exist. -- jalal (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)