--- Abe Sokolov <abesokolov(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>RK is an essential part of the Wiki community
> since his edit wars
> consistently yield the kind of synthesis that we
> want: quality, neutrality,
> and a unique perspective that highlights what Wiki
At what cost? Consider the costs that some here have
mentioned-- lost time, work, and human beings, all
just to maintain an "RK" on WP. It's absurd that such
artificial supports should exist in the Wikipedia,
just because they exist in the international political
world.
We should
disregard the mountain of grievances we
have against him, and
accept him as an eloquent, forceful representative
of a significant share of
hard-liners on the pro-Israel side, although I
would
> certainly favor banning
> if there were no counterweight.
There is no counterweight. I am not here to be RK's
counterweight -- I am staunchly moderate. That there
are few or no rabid Islamists on Wikipedia is not my
doing.
I remember even calling one a "Philistine" before I
booted him-- admittedly to also illustrate the point
that there *is* a very old bias in Western society
against Palestinians.
Since these
are
mass-based struggles, there
might be a substantive benefit to allowing
partisans
> to engage in struggle
> and yield syntheses, in that we might be better
>able to deal with the role
> of public opinion, and political mobilization.
These are not struggles on issues of "mass" or
numbers. They are moral issues, and there is no need
to consider the "roles" of public opinion-- we merely
have to reflect it and its moral degrees accurately.
If we want to be silly, we can even use the Ten
Commandments as a baseline-- being common Law to all
relevant parties-- and assess each political position
and its fidelity to these core principles. It is more
NPOV if we can be equal opportunity "offensive"
(stating the facts) rather than pretend to be
ignorant.
> Actually, I�ve been noticing that Wikipedia�s
have
> been doing a better job
> of conveying how the two sides see this conflict
> than the academic
> literature and media articles (Reuters, NY Times,
> BBC, AP usually) that I
> usually read.
Thats progress at least, but I'd like to see some
examples of what you think qualifies, Abe.
Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
I don't usually have that experience of the two
sides banancing.
You dont exactly live in a politically neutral or
balanced environment anyway, LDan ;-) So thats not
saying anything.
I usually find that many of the articles
about Israel are either violently for Israel (by RK)
or violently against (by Stevertigo).
This is uncalled for. How am I "violent"? 'Rude',
'sharp of tongue', and sometimes 'inconsiderate'
maybe-- but not "violent." ( Now I know how Ed Said
felt when people accused him of an "act of violence"
when all he was doing was throwing a rock or two. )
Your adjective is inappropriate-- if I were RK, I
would have called it
"anti-{{insertMyTribeWhateverThatIs}}" and slanderous.
Lets get one thing clear: "RK" used his ethnicity
(which coincidentally is that of others here ) as a
cloak to hide his *personal *insecurity. Whether this
insecurity is understandable or relatable or not, by
his fellow Jews is irrelevant. That "feeling" of
insecurity that resulted in his "violence" ( ill will
toward others ) is *not to be confused with NPOV/POV
issues, and certainly is *not to be an excuse for his
behaviour, which even Vicki ought to admit was over
the line.
~S~
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com