Hi, Pete,
Thank you for your very thoughtful reply and kind welcome, which I
appreciate most sincerely. Your gloss on the anti-canvassing policy
was most illuminating for me -- thank you.
I have to admit that the anti-canvassing policy is one of the
Wikipedia policies that troubles me the most, as much as I understand
the desire to ensure that votes on Wikipedia are cast objectively. It
concerns me because the only way minorities are typically able to
challenge (and sometimes even to overcome) the "tyranny of the
majority" is by banding together while also soliciting the support of
those members of the majority who would potentially be most
sympathetic to their position. As we all know, that is how women
obtained suffrage in Western nations in the last century or so, and
how racial, religious and ethnic minorities have gradually and
peacefully advanced the security of their civil and political rights
as well. Without the ability to "inflate votes" with those of
potential supporters from the majority, that would hardly have been
possible for any of those groups.
Wikipedia may consider itself exempt from such issues, but I think the
number of experiences that people have reported on this list as to how
articles of particular interest and concern to women have so often
been deleted or attacked for supposedly "lacking notabillity" are
poignant examples of how an obliviously tyrannous majority can oppress
a minority, and how Wikipedia's policy against canvassing actually
operates to entrench such a majority.
Thank you for your advice, your understanding my reluctance to
continue editing Wikipedia, and especially for your good wishes, which
I fully reciprocate.
Best,
Charlotte
On 6/23/11, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Charlotte,
I'd like to thank you for taking the time to provide a rundown of your
"Wikipedia career." I think it's useful for lots of us -- new and old
Wikipedians alike -- to hear stories of how people encounter Wikipedia, and
your providing the context of all your unproblematic encounters is not
something many people take the time to do. So, in addition to echoing
everyone's thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, I also want to thank
you for this thoughtful contribution to this email list.
One thing I'd like to point out -- and it's minor, by comparison. I
appreciate the care you are taking regarding canvassing, and I'm familiar
with the kinds of discussions that prompt it. However, it's really not so
black-and-white. When people make accusations about canvassing, it often
reflects their own misunderstanding of the relevant policies and practices.
No serious deliberative community would prohibit the act of seeking an
outside opinion, or inviting comment from trusted friends.
Like so much of Wikipedia, the important thing is to strike a balance
between good faith input-seeking, and inflating the number of "votes" in a
discussion. The most important ingredient in finding that balance? Something
that Wikipedians rarely talk about: your own good judgment. I trust,
especially, that someone capable of composing an email as thoughtful as
yours is plenty capable of finding the right balance.
As frustrating as relativism can be, Wikipedia is a project that is founded
on human judgment (cf: the 5th pillar, "Ignore All Rules"), and we are are
continually reevaluating how rules apply to situations. Don't let anybody's
rigid adherence to a rule, such as no-canvassing, get in the way of your
efforts to make a better encyclopedia!
Again, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and to this list's
understanding of the new editor's experience. I also hope you'll continue
editing; but at the same time, I've seen plenty of Wikipedians quit --
sometimes when they were clearly "right" -- and benefit from their time away
from Wikipedia. I've also had the pleasure of seeing some of them return
refreshed and reinvigorated. I hope you are one of those; but regardless, I
support your desire to do right by yourself and your family!
-Pete