Jan Hidders wrote:
> ...Everything is debatable.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that. In fact, -- oops! -- I guess even "everything is debatable" is debatable, because I'm, um, oh, never mind!
Ed
mav writes:
>No! You are reading too much into my words. You never said that it is
>possible for us to keep from bickering and wrangling so my above
statement
>was not directed at you but at Wikipedia skeptics in general who /do/
say
>exactly that (and then fault us for not accomplishing this artificial
ideal).
Well, my point was that it seems wikipedia could be more collegial.
Some conflict is to be expected, yes, but I rather suspect some people
look forward to it when it comes. Some people live for it, some
merely tolerate it, some people are bothered by it and avoid it. I'm
formerly of class 1 (horrible arrogant troll I was 5 years ago),
recently of class 2, moving towards class 3. I guess this is my
problem, not everyone else's, except I wonder how many people really
_enjoy_ acrimony--fewer than 12 on the 'pedia, I imagine, probably
fewer than six, and I wonder how many of the other several hundred
active contributors truly are put off by it. Those kind of people
tend to be quieter about it until they've had enough, and then they
leave, with or without explanation. I think Julie was one of those
people; and losing her was a considerable loss.
>As usual I was only thinking about the larger picture and was majorly
>insensitive in how I presented myself.
I don't know about all that. And currently I am the champ of sloppy
writing.
>Please except my sincerest apologies for being so stupidly unclear.
That's ok. I'm sorry for reading it wrong. :-) Offense taken,
momentarily, then put back down.
best wishes, I will see you all (except the lurkers) ;-) in a few weeks.
kq
Just revert - no need to justify. Or ban the IP. This sort of nonsense doesn't need a long debate. we're here to make an encyclopedia, not to accommodate weird views.
Ed
I don't think Jimbo is going to demote anyone from "sysop" just because of a difference of opinion.
It's not easy to carry on a discussion, when all we can see is text messages. Even a phone call sometimes is not good enough.
Often a single misplaced word (like "disingenuous", to use a personal example) can open up a Pandora's box of hurt feelings.
To maintain congeniality, I hope we will all try to remain mild-mannered and patient.
Uncle Ed
I'm quite disgusted at Isis' behaviour to the extent that I've joined this mail list so that I can voice my wish (seconding Eloquence's) that Isis be removed from sysop status. Furthermore I think she should be banned for making ridiculous threats of legal action to a fellow Wikipedian (Tarquin) over a comment that as far as I can gather was merely a difference of opinion.
Regards
Mintguy
Eugene Gill
On Saturday 01 February 2003 04:00 am, Clutch wrote:
>....
> I have no religious or ideological motivation for saying this, but I too
> have read both sides of the story and agree with Ed the global warming
> as an unprecedented and imminent disaster seems like a grand hoax.
>....
With friends like you Ed doesn't need enemies:
Well Clutch you also think there is a grand conspiracy with the US government
poisoning the American people by adding fluoride to their drinking water. And
on top of that you think that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax. In
addition there doesn't seem to be an anti-Semite you didn't like (thinking of
the considerable work you have done to absolutely minimize that aspect of
Richard Wagner and now Henry Ford). Oh and your work on [[Jehovah's
Witnesses]] and daughter articles is Witness-friendly enough for publication
in WatchTower. So IMO your above words carry very little weight - at least
for me.
With that said, I do think that Ed's POV in regards to global warming and the
Unification Church is too great for him to make substantial changes to those
articles without unintentionally violating NPOV. For example, I know my POV
on homosexuality is too great to make any changes greater than adding or
modifying a paragraph in the homosexuality-related articles.
Some issues are simply hot buttons for people and for the sake of NPOV we
should voluntarily not make substantive changes to those articles (otherwise
we unconsciously give our POV too much weight in articles). Of course there
are rare people like Montrealais who in spite of his strong POV on gay issues
is able to make what is IMO NPOV contributions in that area.
We should all understand that the ability to 'write for the enemy' is
difficult and that trying to write for your mortal enemy whom you absolutely
despise is very difficult and impossible to do correctly for most people.
--mav
WikiKarma:
Added more events to [[January 29]] and updated all the year pages and many
other articles linked from that page.
Ed Poor wrote:
> > Hey, speaking of disingenuous answers, how about applying the NPOV to the
>> [[global warming]] article? Are you able to step back from your advocacy and
> > be neutral for a few minutes, and help us make a balanced article there?
And Erik Moeller replied:
>Ed, why this personal attack ("speaking of disingenuous answers"), and why
>on the mailing list? "Step back from your advocacy" - which advocacy?
>Sheldon has not made a single edit to the global warming article. His last
>major contribution is from a week ago and unrelated. Since Sheldon joined
>the project, you have repeatedly attacked him, also on Talk pages.
Thanks, Erik, for rising to my defense. I should point out, however,
that I *have* made a "single edit" to the global warming article. I
made the edit on December 18 under IP # 208.171.49.198. It's a fairly
minor edit, and I wasn't logged in under my user ID at the time
because I had only begun using Wikipedia a few days previously and
wasn't accustomed yet to the habit of logging in.
I must say, though, that I find it remarkably hypocritical for Ed to
accuse *me* of being disingenous with regard to inserting a POV. I'm
not going to debate him here about the scientific evidence on global
warming, but it's very clear that he has been assiduously lobbying to
inject his point of view into the article - a point of view that he
expressed quite clearly in the Talk page, where he stated, "The whole
global warming thing is a hoax, and 'warmers' have used statistical
manipulation (i.e., lied) to bolster their arguments." Clearly, when
someone resorts to calling other people liars, that's a strong point
of view, and virtually every edit that Ed has made to this article is
an attempt to inject this point of view by challenging the
scientificity of the global warming hypothesis and impugning the
motives of its proponents.
Ed has also injected a point of view into his articles about Sun
Myung Moon and the Unification Church. The article about Moon reads
more like worshipful hagiography than a serious attempt at biography.
It gushes about his "cheerful attitude" and "intolerance of
injustice," and states that Moon "had a vision or revelation of Jesus
Christ while praying on top of a tall hill," as though this were a
documented fact. The article on "Sun Myung Moon/tax case" consists
primarily of Moon's defense arguments and even includes a
first-person statement by Ed in which he first states as fact an
undocumented claim that the government made an offer to "drop all the
charges," and then writes that this is "a story circulated among us
UC members." It's clearly POV and a violation of Wikipedia policy to
inject first-person commentary based on church gossip into the actual
text of articles.
These examples demonstrate a dilemma that is bound to arise
occasionally when attempting to write from a "neutral point of view."
When someone believes passionately in their point of view (as Ed
clearly does with regard to both global warming and the Unification
Church), it becomes difficult for them to distinguish between their
strongly-held beliefs and a NPOV. In the case of Rev. Moon, Ed seems
incapable of even *attempting* to draft a neutral text. In the case
of global warming, his version of "neutrality" consists of tortured
equal weight to skeptics and global warming proponents alike, while
constantly impugning the alleged "environmentalist bias" of global
warming proponents. In reality, this forced "balance" is no more
inherently neutral than it would be for Wikipedia to give Nazi
Holocaust deniers the same weight and credence as it gives to
Holocaust historians, while insinuating that the people who believe
in the Holocaust are Jews and Jew-lovers.
I don't fault Ed for having some ideological blind spots. I'm sure I
have my own. However, I strongly disagree with his absurd notion that
I have some personal responsibility to do his dirty work for him by
inserting arguments with which I do not agree into the global warming
article. He wrote:
>One of the best ways to attain neutrality in a contentious article
>is for a person who believes passionately in one side to focus on
>making the best case for the OTHER SIDE. If you could do this, it
>would be a big help.
Since I am sure that Ed doesn't want us to think he's a hypocrite, I
am sure that he will set an example for us all by editing his
articles about Rev. Moon so that they "focus on making the best case"
for arguments that Moon is a fraud, tax cheat, manipulative cult
leader, failure as a father and behind-the-scenes backer of
Nicaraguan contras and North Korean politicians who lives in
ostentatious wealth while expecting his followers to live in poverty.
I would do this myself, except that I'm not really interested in
writing about the Unification Church. And since Ed "believes
passionately" in his church, one of the "best ways to attain
neutrality" would be to have him be the one who makes these arguments.
--
--------------------------------
| 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
--------------------------------
When I think of wikipedia, somehow I'm reminded of the [[Milgram
experiment]]--except the seats are really wired. Currently I would
not recommend anyone join wikipedia, unless the person knows of some
obscure Russian filmmaker to write about or some photographic
technique which calls for dry unemotional writing. Something about
the culture here is just *wrong*; it calls to people who itch to have
a buzzer in hand, and those of us lucky enough not to be on the
receiving end are still uncomfortable watching the spectacle.
Why are you here? Are any of you trying to change another person's
opinion? If you are, you belong on Usenet, and best of luck.
kq
Given Isis'/Kay's continued legal threats against a valued member of the
Wikipedia community (Tarquin) for a misunderstanding (largely on her part), I
must insist that her sysop status be revoked. I cannot trust her to be fair in
the use of the sysop privileges any longer.
Jimbo, please take action in this matter ASAP.
Regards,
Erik
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
Can I just take a minute to congratulate Wikipedians on the articles on the
Columbia accident (
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster ). The
coverage is better than anything I found on other internet media or print
media, and dispels many of the "jump to conclusions" storylines.
Wikijournalism beats standard journalism :-)
--
Richard Grevers
New Plymouth, New Zealand, New Year.