WikiEN-l October 2003

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

91 participants
397 discussions

An excellent resource to learn about mediation and arbitration
by martin＠myreddice.freeserve.co.uk 04 Oct '03

04 Oct '03

An excellent resource to learn about mediation and arbitration: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediation http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediation http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration -Martin "MyRedDice" Harper

1 0

Response to Ray Saintonge - more in favor of the status quo for the Israel-relat
by Abe Sokolov 04 Oct '03

04 Oct '03

Axle: I couldnt agree more with your message: Now, it's important to realize that *we* set the boundaries of that sandbox. If RKs coming back (and hopefully he will), hes going to need close supervision. _________________________________________________________________ Share your photos without swamping your Inbox. Get Hotmail Extra Storage today! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es

5 5

The Times They are a'Changin'
by Abe Sokolov 04 Oct '03

04 Oct '03

Jimbo's "double edge sword" comment was very well put. Both users function best on the Israeli-Palestinian articles when they have each other by the throat. Btw, Sv's Bob Dylan allusion should be leaving us with more than the tune to "The Times They are a'Changin'" in our heads. Made with such decidedly bad taste, it started to prove me right sooner than I had expected. Israeli-Palestinian neutrality was little more than an equilibrium of RK and Sv. Without RK, Sv's side's going to have a far greater say over all the articles than ever - which will encourage new RK-types to invade the site in droves. Those favoring a ban on RK are way off if they think that the outcome is going to be NPOV (or maybe they don't care - maybe their reasons are solely personal and ideological). I can understand that - I'd much rather work with the more reasonable Sv (whose worldview is by and large is far closer to mine than RK's is)- but that's not in Wikipedia's interests as a whole. _________________________________________________________________ Frustrated with dial-up? Get high-speed for as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local service providers in your area). https://broadband.msn.com

5 6

Re: [WikiEN-l] err...
by Brian Corr 04 Oct '03

04 Oct '03

And on a separate note, looking at the talk page of the user who started this new skirmish on Jerusalem and Tel Aviv -- <http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:12.144.5.2> -- it seems to be someone who's ready to step into part of the role that RK filled -- and not necessarily in the best ways. Thanks, Brian At 12:09 AM 10/4/03 +0000, you wrote: >Message: 3 >Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 14:46:12 -0700 (PDT) >From: Anthere <anthere6(a)yahoo.com> >Subject: [WikiEN-l] err... >To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org >Message-ID: <20031003214612.44445.qmail(a)web41701.mail.yahoo.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >Are they doing it on purpose on the Tel Aviv, >Jerusalem and other pages, just to give credit to 172 >thesis ? > >Anthere

3 2

No benefit from violence (Ed, you misunderstood my points!)
by Abe Sokolov 04 Oct '03

04 Oct '03

Ed, This is the very thing that Im arguing against: Some people think that 2 opposing sides can battle it out, and let the best man win. A sort of zero-sum game. We want STALEMATED zero sum games, like a stalemate in chess or the outcome of the Iraq-Iran War! This only happens when the power, luck, and strategy of both sides balances out! Im saying that RKs absence would weaken his side to the extent that the pattern of stalemates would shift to a pattern of best man winning (i.e. Sv). I dont favor Wiki Darwinism! I only say that its acceptable in this context for a number of reasons stated in the earlier postings: it yields a unique perspective, it yields NPOV by stalemate, and we cannot expect anything else (BTW, I provided an analysis in an earlier posting illuminating why flame wars are unavoidable for these sets of articles). Yes, there are some articles that are not the product of conflict, stalemate, and synthesis, but this cannot be avoided. An article on, for instance, lists of Palestinian villages destroyed, is inherently a pro-Palestinian, and an article on, for instance, anti-Semitic statements attributed to Palestinian figures, inherently the domain of RK. However, their tensions will check for accuracy, but not change the orientation of the article. I'm referring to the pivotal articles (e.g., Israel, History of Israel, PLO, Hamas, Arafat, Sharon, etc.). That's where the tension (and the equal strength of the opposing forces) is needed. _________________________________________________________________ Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your existing Internet access and enjoy patented spam protection and more. Sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/byoa

2 2

RE: [WikiEN-l] No benefit from violence (Ed, you misunderstood my points!)
by Poor, Edmund W 04 Oct '03

04 Oct '03

I don't think stability can come about through the stalemate of equal force. As soon as one of the forces wavers, the whole thing will come apart like a house of cards. There has to be give and take. Each side has to feel understood by the other. And they have to AGREE to disagree - or to share - or whatever. No agreement, no stability. Ed Poor

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] More benefits of RK's bad behaivor
by Brian Corr 04 Oct '03

04 Oct '03

In response to various comments that RK has chased away a lot of people, I want to let people know that I came very -- *very* -- close to being one of those people. I don't think anyone should underestimate the power he has had to drive people away -- or at the very least make them feel they are not welcome to "edit this page." Whatever the outcomes of this situation with are, I hope people will take my story into consideration as you decide. A bit of history on me: I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia: I made my first edits without registering in June <http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=63…>, and didn't get back to Wikipedia for a few months. Then I was looking for some stuff on Google about Quebecois French, found it (and a bad link), registered, made a few edits, wrote my first article <http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty_association> and was feeling good. My first significant edits to an existing article came ten days later and were to <http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence>, which was listed on Pages needing attention. So I dived in, did my best to add a bit of context about the nature of race without taking out what others had said and making a few minor edits, e.g. ''Nazis" to "racists". I felt that the article was pretty well coming from the POV that race was a "real" difference between people and defined innate abilities, etc. So I did my best to make it more balanced and really NPOV. Well, almost immediately (2hrs) the bulk of my additions were reverted for being POV by RK with these comments: "Removing a POV essay that is polemical, and non-scientific. Removing incorrect intro. Race is NOT a new topic or idea." (Here's the page history: <http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Race_and_intelligence&action=hi…>. I am stubborn enough (just ask Hephaestos about me and the Horace Donisthorpe pages) and sure enough of myself that I was right that I did go right back to the article and make changes to one sentence: I changed "In recent years there have been a few theories as to why Ashkenazi Jews seem to have higher intelligence and success than people in many other ethnic groups." to "In recent years there have been a few theories as to why Ashkenazi Jews have higher intelligence scores on standardized tests and more economic and professional success in society than people in many other ethnic groups." In large part, I think that single edit survived because I had gone to RK's User page to see who this person was who trashed me actually was, and I threw him a bone about Ashkenazi Jews in the comment to my edit: "clarified statement on intelligence and success of Ashkenazim" I still hadn't gone back to do work on this article -- which I feel it desperately needs, since it reads like an apologia for the book *The Bell Curve* -- because I didn't want to clash with this guy anymore. And I hadn't looked back at the history until I started constructing this message -- because I'm still pissed about what he did. The lesson I learned was not to edit "against" RK -- and it did feel like he was against me. This article wasn't about Israel or Palestine, but it seems that for RK it was about his race and why they did better, and he wasn't interested in changing that. Also, if you look at the first edits he made -- <http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Race_and_intelligence&diff=1118…> -- he was the first to add in phrases about African Americans scoring lower on IQ tests. He also was very invested in the idea that race *is* not rejected by most scientists, which I would argue is just incorrect. So, why all this detail? I was confronted by RK's rudeness and unwillingness to try to edit what I had written, and when I looked at the page history, I discovered that RK was actually the one who had added in much of the material that I felt was most biased and was focused on promoting the idea that race is a biological -- rather than a social -- reality. I know that that can be argued with, but that's exactly the point -- it's an *opinion*, and RK was unwilling to look at it as such. My sense is that I'm the exception rather than the rule -- I would guess from what I've seen over the last month that it's not that common for someone as new as me to start posting to the mailing list, VfD, etc. I've stuck it out, written a couple of articles I like (Black_Bottom, United_Auto_Workers, and Urban_renewal) and empowered myself to join into Wikipedia's administrative functions as if I belonged here. And by the way, I'm an African American, and none of my interactions with RK left me with the feeling that I and my ideas were very welcome in the project, but I don't expect that people will defer to me on issues of race because of that -- I think I have to make my case stand on its own merits -- and I don't assume that RK is a racist because I think some of his views on race are biased in my opinion. So I bit my lip and kept going. Again, I think I'm most likely the exception in this. As a new person, I don't feel like I have any standing to vote for or against banning RK, but I will say that I will be far more likely to contribute to articles on race and politics if I don't think that RK might (will) revert my edits and deride my writing -- and me. And I think there are probably many more people like me (if perhaps less outspoken) who contribute to Wikipedia. I also want to say since that brush with RK (as I've persevered) I've gotten a good deal of positive feedback and constructive criticism on a number of things from many of you on this list -- I wouldn't still be here without that. Thanks, Brian (Bcorr) At 05:26 PM 10/3/03 +0000, you wrote: >Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:48:11 +0000 >From: "Abe Sokolov" <abesokolov(a)hotmail.com> >Subject: [WikiEN-l] More benefits of RK's bad behaivor >To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org >Message-ID: <BAY7-F109joGK64u7lr00006861(a)hotmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > >Admittedly, I would have jumped on the bandwagon for his banning when I had >my first RK experience. >RK has called me a few choice things in the past, but I been discovering >that 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 can offer that other >sourcebooks cannot. > >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. 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. > >Actually, Ive been noticing that Wikipedias 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. > >All academic journals, sourcebooks, and media outlets have their strengths >and weaknesses when weighed against each other. And Wiki offers a unique >perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute made possible by the dynamics >of RK and his enemies. Nothing else available online is going to be >synthesis of material written by- and also edited by - such a diverse group >of perspectives (the online medium makes it possible there might be >violence if this group were in the same room!). The articles convey all >facets of reality, being products themselves of an actually >Israeli-Palestinian proxy battle. > >As a disclaimer, as the son of Holocaust survivors Ill state my solidarity >with RKs passions for a strong, secure state of Israel. However, my views >on his conception of Arab culture are closer to the late Edward Said than >Daniel Pipes. As a historian, I find myself cringing, and often gasping with >disbelief, when reading RKs tracts on the Palestinians, Arabs, or Islam. > >Perhaps I can relate to RKs mentality better than most, but Ive wedded a >strong rebuke of RKs paranoia, obnoxiousness, and bully tactics to a >defense of the end result.

1 0

Re: Speaking of POV -- MR Sheldon Rampton?
by Sheldon Rampton 04 Oct '03

04 Oct '03

Steve Vertigum wrote: >Ive looked at some of the material on Disinfopedia, >and think most of it too valuable to leave to it >alone. I would encourage at some point an integration >of those date to Wikipedia-- as much of it is >encyclopedic. > >The only failing of Disinfo that I can see so far >(besides the fact that "Disinfo" doesnt bring up DisP >on a Google search) is its disconnection from >Wikipedia, and the division of energy that it >represents. Sorry for not answering this sooner. I'm rather busy these days, so I haven't been reading all my email. I'm not opposed in principle to merging the Disinfopedia into Wikipedia, but I'd like to see what other Wikipedians think of the idea. >Not to mention NPOV -- that the occasional crass >comment actually hurts the legitimacy of the DisP as a >source. Point taken. The Disinfopedia is still very young, and hasn't yet achieved the maturity of the Wikipedia. >Respectforking yours, Har har. Technically, though, I don't think the Disinfopedia is a fork. -- -------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception --------------------------------

2 1

No benefit from violence
by Poor, Edmund W 04 Oct '03

04 Oct '03

Little Dan observed, > I don't usually have that experience of the two sides > balancing. I usually find that many of the articles about > Israel are either violently for Israel (by RK) or violently > against (by Stevertigo). I agree, although others do not. Some people think that 2 opposing sides can battle it out, and let the best man win. A sort of zero-sum game. But I don't think Wikipedia can work like that. Balance can't come without stability. A stable article is one which any side in a controversy can look at and say, yes, this article describes my side accurately and does not give an unfair advantage to the other side. Sometimes I want to propose a rule that, when someone goes on a POV crusade, they should be told not to edit any more until they can "state the other side's case to the satisfaction of the other side" (to paraphrase famous success coach Steven Covey). Ed Poor

2 1

More benefits of RK's bad behaivor
by Abe Sokolov 04 Oct '03

04 Oct '03

Admittedly, I would have jumped on the bandwagon for his banning when I had my first RK experience. RK has called me a few choice things in the past, but I been discovering that 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 can offer that other sourcebooks cannot. 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. 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. Actually, Ive been noticing that Wikipedias 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. All academic journals, sourcebooks, and media outlets have their strengths and weaknesses when weighed against each other. And Wiki offers a unique perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute made possible by the dynamics of RK and his enemies. Nothing else available online is going to be synthesis of material written by- and also edited by - such a diverse group of perspectives (the online medium makes it possible there might be violence if this group were in the same room!). The articles convey all facets of reality, being products themselves of an actually Israeli-Palestinian proxy battle. As a disclaimer, as the son of Holocaust survivors Ill state my solidarity with RKs passions for a strong, secure state of Israel. However, my views on his conception of Arab culture are closer to the late Edward Said than Daniel Pipes. As a historian, I find myself cringing, and often gasping with disbelief, when reading RKs tracts on the Palestinians, Arabs, or Islam. Perhaps I can relate to RKs mentality better than most, but Ive wedded a strong rebuke of RKs paranoia, obnoxiousness, and bully tactics to a defense of the end result. _________________________________________________________________ Get McAfee virus scanning and cleaning of incoming attachments. Get Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es

3 2

← Newer
1
...
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
...
40
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l October 2003