Daniel's response suggests that maybe I wasn't
completely clear as to
what I meant by the "menacing and combative" atmosphere of Wikipedia,
the take-out-the-other-guy-by-whatever-means-necessary aggression that
I find so aversive.
And I am glad for yours because you clarified a bit better what you're
talking about in a way that improves my understanding, or at least makes me
feel that it has been improved.
When half of the people working
on an article are trying to write an encyclopedia and the other half
are using Wikipedia as a platform to advance an agenda, there can
never be a congenial atmosphere, and until/unless Wikipedia finds a
way to effectively deal with advocacy toward non-neutral content,
this situation of endless battle will continue unabated, and as I said
before, I want no part of it.
I *do* have some experience with this aspect of Wikipedia, where I have on
occasion strayed. Specifically, those broad groups of articles that mirror
real-life controversies, as I've noted elsewhere. Israel/Palestine seems to
be the biggest minefield at the moment, though at times The Troubles have
not been far behind. In those fields I do not deny there are editors who,
being otherwise competent members of the community, have an agenda.
I tried, once, after the brief removal of a picture I had taken and added to
the article because I thought it relevant, to involve myself in a dispute
over wording that reached the RfC level. I had what I thought to be a great,
neutral way of describing the political status of the Golan Heights, but
none of the regulars in that arena seemed interested in giving an inch. It
seemed on closer examination that this was just the latest round for some of
these people.
I totally agree that we have not found an effective way to deal with these
areas, where controversy is almost guaranteed to occur (our conduct policies
are written with the presumption that people will be editing things like
articles about architecture and movies where disagreements are likely to
remain cordial as no one has a personally defining stake in the outcome). I
have had some ideas but those are probably better left to another forum if
we wish the present discussion to remain reasonably on-topic.
This IS about content, as far as I'm
concerned. And please don't tell me to edit
articles that should
interest women, like fashion articles or articles about friendship
bracelets or dolls, instead of the articles that actually interest me.
I'm not *telling* anyone to edit that way. I was just noting mine and
others' belief that the desultory state of those articles is probably a
symptom (one of many) of Wikipedia's gender imbalance.
Daniel Case