Thanks again for the support to those who support me, and also to those
who don't but are dealing with this respectfully (i.e. just about all of
us by now). I didn't know if using this list would be more productive
than my earlier experience, but I'm glad it has been. I'll try to answer
all the points here in another group-response. If I miss your point, it's
only because I forgot it, not because I'm avoiding it-- don't be afraid to
ask again! So, here are some thoughts and specific responses:
Yes, I did see one (1) request in one (1) early edit summary to take it to
the discussion page. I went to the discussion page, and I saw that that
person (Texture) had not added anything. Given that s/he was being
insulting and a liar, I didn't think there was a point in starting what I
thought would be either a monologue or a non-rational exchange; maybe I
should have anyway, I don't know. If nothing else, it would have removed
a gripe against me. If anyone else had started a discussion there, I
certainly would have continued it. I checked the discussion page several
times throughout it all, and never saw any new commentary there.
Stormie said the onus is on me as the contributor to start the discussion.
I disagree. Should every edit be preceded by a discussion? I would think
the onus to start the discussion would be on the person who is the first
to disagree, thereby making it apparent that discussion is needed. (Not
that any party can't start a discussion, of course, but since you
mentioned it....)
Furthermore-- and this is true for any such collaboration, not just
Wikipedia-- a deletion is a more drastic change than an addition, and
requires more of an explanation. To delete something without explanation
is basically censorship; a non-censor's approach would *add* another
viewpoint, or at least reword the existing phrase. So that's another
reason why I think the onus to justify one's actions was on the others,
because they were the deleters. Maybe this isn't Wikipedia practice, but
maybe you can see why a newcomer might think it is.
And no, Stormie, I do not see why "the way [I] went about inserting it"
met with such hostility. I think someone who would react with hostility
to what I did should rethink why they would react that way, IMO. I did
only reasonable things, and I treated everyone involved at least as well
as they treated me.
As I explained earlier, I firmly think that my addition reduced the
POV-ness of what was there before.
As for my violating the 3-revert rule, I saw the others as being more
guilty of that than I was, even if they were three different people. I
was just undoing their unjustified, POV deletions, which seemed a lot more
like vandalism than what I was doing. That's how I saw it, anyway. If
someone HAD warned me about the 3-revert rule, I would have asked why it
was being applied to me and not the others.
Yes, I remember seeing a lot of specific policy violations. I'll try to
make a list in a subsequent email, as requested.
I did call Texture a newbie, even though I could tell he'd been around
longer than that. I called him a newbie because he was acting like one--
misusing the word "vandalism", being insulting, generally non-rational,
etc. How does he expect to be taken seriously? Also, since he dismissed
my edits for being a newbie, I wanted to point out that that approach
doesn't work in an egalitarian collaboration. Does he have any real
experience in that, anyway? He doesn't seem to.
I would like to think that everyone here is acting in good faith, but it's
hard to think that of someone who's being dishonest.
A couple of people seem to think I'm being a stickler for policy. But the
policies I'm talking about are basic-- how to edit a page, how and why to
revert (and when not to), what is blocking policy, etc.-- much of it about
basic ways to get along. From what I've seen, they're actually quite
good, and the system of policies allows the core values of Wikipedia to be
realized (egalitarianism, anyone can add to it, ways of resolving
disputes, various recourses always available, etc.) I only got concerned
with policy when other people started doing things that seemed
unreasonable, so I sought out what was standard practice in the Wikipedia
world. Note this: For newbies, what's written on the policy pages may be
all they have to go on.
Since Timwi wondered, by "double standard" I mean the practice of applying
a set of rules to one set of people, and applying a different set of rules
to another. Most commonly, the last half translates into "acting as if
the rules don't apply to oneself or one's friends." (Maybe we need a
Wikipedia page about it.)
That's all for now. I'll do the policy violations list next, but this has
taken a long time already and I may not get to it tonight. Thanks for
trying to improve the system-- as you know, this is not really about me,
it's about the Wikipedia system.
Cheers,
James
............................................................................
James Marshall james(a)jmarshall.com Berkeley, CA @}-'-,--
"Teach people what you know."
............................................................................