WikiEN-l July 2004

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

102 participants
187 discussions

hate speech
by steven l. rubenstein 06 Jul '04

06 Jul '04

Chris Mahan wrote, > > which begs the question, what do you mean by "communicative?" I > > assume you > > mean that the only thing it does is to describe or express > > something else, > > but has not force in and of itself. > > >Your assumption was incorrect. But judging from the rest of his response, my assumption was correct. Chris, you just do not understand the point. I suggest you read Austin's book and perhaps take a couple of courses in the philosophy of language. It looks like few people have interest in the question of hate speech, so I will not belabor the point. But for everyone besides Chris, I do want to add one more thing, to clarify my earlier points. One of Wikipedia's key policies is to respect contributors, and an important behavioral guideline is to avoid personal attacks. One reason I am so concerned about hate speech is that I do not feel it is strictly covered by this policy and this guideline -- because hate speech is impersonal. Strictly speaking, I did not feel WHEELER was attacking me "personally," I felt he was attacking me "impersonally." It was not directed at me personally (which is explicitly against our policy) because it was not about me, personally. But it was about Jews, so since I am a Jew it is about me, just me, impersonally. If this is not clear, all I can ask is that you read any of the countless explanations of the rationale behind hate speech legislation or hate crime legislation. The point is not that you should agree that we need hate speech legislation, just to understand how hate speech is different from other forms of rude or insulting or disrespectful speech. Perhaps all I have been asking for is recognition of another reason for mediation or arbitration beyond the ones listed. Steve --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 5/22/2004

2 1

Should Wikipedia endorse or oppose mass murder?
by Poor, Edmund W 06 Jul '04

06 Jul '04

Hatred leads to murder. Murder is bad. But should Wikipedia officially oppose hatred? Or mass murder? Given that Jimbo regularly intersperses his mailing list posts with terms like "WikiLove" and urges us all to communicate cordially, perhaps a time will come when Wikipedia can move from near-anarchy and/or benign dictatorship to some sort of constitutional democracy. If so, a statement of values may be necessary. Values inform rules. We can't just make up rules out of the thin air, and voting on them won't work if for no other reason than ballot-stuffing can't be tracked. Yet the mainstay of Wikipedia's conflict resolution policy, indeed the only thing that allows it to be an open WIKI, is that all views are tolerated; i.e., no view is endorsed when there's a controversy. We all hesitate to tamper with this policy that has served us so well. But it has its weaknesses. * There's no way to stop people from their Holocaust-denying, anti-Semitic rants. * The debate over mass murder (i.e., "genocide") carried out by Communist regimes always causes deadlock via page protection and bannings. I mean, if hate and murder are such problems maybe we should officially label them as "bad". Ed Poor (speaking for myself)

4 6

RE: [WikiEN-l] Re: thank you
by Poor, Edmund W 06 Jul '04

06 Jul '04

Lir, Stop it. Stop acting like, "No matter how unpleasant I make myself to the community, they have no right to get rid of me unless they prove to _my_ satisfaction that I have broken a rule which applies equally to everyone." Just stop doing this, or you'll never get back in the door. I offered to help you, a year or so ago, when you got kicked out the _first_ time. The issue hasn't changed: You can't be a member of this community on _your_ terms. Nobody can, and ironically, this is a rule that applies equally to everyone: if you want people to like you, start by being likable. If you want to be tolerated, you could be more tolerant. Anthere and others have devoted a lot of time to helping you. They deserve genuine thanks, not a sarcastic slap in the face. If you want people to listen to you, try listening to _them_. Look for at least one thing in each communication that you can agree with or appreciate, and comment on _that_ instead of being so goldarn negative all the time. I mean, really! :-( If you want to be trusted, make every effort to _earn_ that trust. There's a reason that a wealthy atheist (named Jimbo) trusted a "poor" religious "nut" (named Ed) with awesome powers. The more responsibility one shows, the more power others are willing to give them. You could turn this whole thing around in a heartbeat. The ball's in your court. Put community ahead of self, and you'll hit a home run! :-) Uncle Ed Member of mediation committee Bureaucrat ... and Developer Emeritus -----Original Message----- From: Anthere [mailto:anthere9@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 6:13 AM To: C A S [name omitted for privacy reasons] Cc: wikien-l(a)wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: thank you Lir, I think that unfortunately, whatever the rules you might breach or not breach, and whatever Jimbo wish that you be plainly welcome back as a member with full editing rights, it is unfortunately a fact that many members of the english wikipedia are not happy with you being a participant. And admittedly, your attitude just does not help convince them that the benefits you are bringing Wikipedia balance the drawbacks. It might help that you adopt a more positive stance, perhaps not always criticizing so much volunteers for being either too quick or too slow, or too rude or too polite, or too bold or not daring enough. May I suggest that if you want to be treated in an appropriate manner, you might perhaps think carefully about what is appropriate and what is not. Your issue has everything to do with sockpuppets, as Guanaco thought you were these sockpuppets (perhaps guidelines indicating how the community decides that this one is a sock puppet or is not...though we know nothing can really be proved), and as Guanaco also thought sockpuppets were illegal (so perhaps guidelines indicating what is illegal for a sock puppet to do, and what is legal would be good). Policies such as this one should be designed at community level. This is *not* the board job to do so *at all*. There must be a discussion on the wiki itself, with wikipedians, and I guess Sannse can help on this. Or whoever feels that sock puppet management has become a very painful matter now. Also, both Sannse and Ed are members of the MC, and Ed proposed to help you. This was your choice not to accept the proposal. I will add perhaps boldly that, regardless to rules and policies, belonging to a community is essentially being "accepted" by it, with defaults and qualities. It is more a feeling, a perception. But qualities should always compensate defaults. Most of the time, there is no need of crossing the name of a person on the membership list. Banning is really the final indication that a community reject someone, and has to do so officially, but before that happens, a few signs are meaningful and may indicate to a "member" that he might consider just moving on. C A S [name omitted for privacy reasons] <a[name omitted for privacy reasons](a)msn.com> wrote: *would like you to cool down and allow time for things to proceed. **As if, you've had months and months to lift your fingers -- you never intend to do anything. *This week end, we had a meeting in Paris, so essentially, Angela, Jimbo and I were unavailable. **If you are too busy, resign from the board/mediation committee and let someone else do the job. *Was that it had been a not very good move from Guanaco, misunderstanding from his part, but mostly unclear policy with regards to sock puppets. **It has nothing to do with sock puppets; no evidence has been shown that Yuna or YES was a sockpuppet of mine. Regardless of the rules regarding sockpuppets, I don't have one! *Sannse agreed to try to work with others on this policy, so that things are clearer. I thought this was essentially your request **I don't want "Sannse" working with others -- I want the Wikimedia board to get off its ass and start demanding sysops treating regular users in an appropriate manner. *I have no idea of the last events, and frankly, right now, really no time to look at it. **Resign Anthere, resign -- nothing is getting done because you don't have time, and nobody else can do it because you are hogging too many important positions. *I suggest that you explain what happened to the arbitration committee if you really feel that it is important. **The Arbitration Committee refuses to speak with me. _____ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/10/*http://promotions.yahoo.com /new_mail/static/efficiency.html> - Send 10MB messages!

1 0

WHEELER's anti-Semitism
by steven l. rubenstein 06 Jul '04

06 Jul '04

Chris Mahan recently wrote: >The reason why I say that hate speech is not destructive is that >speech itself is strictly communicative. which begs the question, what do you mean by "communicative?" I assume you mean that the only thing it does is to describe or express something else, but has not force in and of itself. If this is what CM means, he is mistaken. Some propositions are indeed expressive or descriptive (e.g., "I feel sick" or "the house is blue" -- in the first case the proposition describes how I feel, in the second case it describes the house. In both cases the proposition is about something else). But some propositions are performative -- statements which are in and of themselves actions. J.L. Austin provides some pretty common examples: when someone says "I name this ship The Queen Elizabeth" it is the very pronouncement that accomplishes the naming. Similarly, when one says "I bet you ..." it is the act of saying so that constitutes the bet. Or when someone says "I promise," it is the very act of speaking that accomplishes the promise. You can call these statements "communicative" if you like -- what is important is a major distinction between these kinds of statements and statements like "the house is blue." The question is, what kind of proposition is "Jewish concentration camps" (meaning, concentration camps run by Jews) I think the answer is, both. It is a descriptive statement that can be either true or false (and in the case of the camps WHEELER was referring too, false). But I believe it is also a performative statement, and it is in this sense that it is hate speech, and destructive. Some people have suggested that what makes it hate speech is its potential to incite physical violence. I think this is valid (and a valid legal principle: threatening someone may be punishable, at least in the U.S., or may not -- courts decide in part from weighing how likely the threat could lead to physical violence). But the argument of "hate speech" is that performative statements are in and of themselves violent. One example is the power of speech to intimidate (and although threats may be purely verbal, they can still be actionable for this reason). This was established in the United States by the 1942 Supreme Court decision Chaplinsky versus New Hampshire, which is the basis for some hate speech legislation in the U.S. (and available on the web). Another is the power of speech to stigmatize (this is in effect the argument MacKinnon and Dworkin made against pornography -- the very act renders women sexual objects). The ACLU opposes hate speech legislation on two grounds: first, it considers hate speech one of the prices a society must pay for a general right to freedom of speech, and second, it believes the best response to hate speech is more speech. I happen to sympathize very strongly, or just plain agree, with both of these. I do not think the state should limit free speech. WHEELER, for example, has a right to say whatever anti-Semitic thing he wants to, to anyone who wants to listen. The question is, do I have to listen? Do you, do we have to listen? And, more importantly, does Wikipedia have to be a medium through which anyone spews hate speech? I don't think so. And I think that anyone who construes this argument against hate speech on Wikipedia as censorship is seriously distorting the situation. Wikipedia is a community, not the state. Just because a person has a legal right to do something does not mean we are obliged to collude. For example, people have a right to advertise but we do not allow advertisements on Wikipedia. Advertisements do not benefit our project, and only mislead people as to the nature of our project. The same goes for hate speech. If I thought it were possible that hate speech on Wikipedia could lead to the improvement of an article, for example, I would defend it. But I don't think it leads to the improvement of articles, and only appropriates our space to hateful purposes. Steve Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 5/22/2004

2 1

Mentoring system (was: Some Restrictions May Apply)
by Poor, Edmund W 06 Jul '04

06 Jul '04

In response to Denni and Christopher, I have been in my company's mentoring program for over two years, providing guidance to high school students at LaGuardia High School, which prepares public high school students for professional careers in dance, music or drama (the movie and TV series Fame both dramatized student life there). Now in it's 14th year, it is the longest running and most successful of my company's volunteer programs. The key is sponsorship and organization. First of all, New York City _has_ a mentoring program for its schools. There are mentoring coordinators both at my company, and at the local high school. We organizers all meet each other at least three times a year. At Wikipedia, I used to follow newbies around and offer them help, but then I got swept up in Jimbo's proposal to have a Mediation Committee and an Arbitration Committee. I agreed to serve as a mediator, both on the official (appointed) committee and later in Alex's grassroots (elected) Member Advocate project. These things didn't bear much fruit, because they are "courts of last resort". Advocacy, mediation, arbitration -- these are all legal mechanisms by which we turn the gears of justice. Wouldn't it be better to plant seeds? And water them? And give them sunlight and fresh air? (That is, guidance and praise and encouragement?) My response to the Six Month Experiment of having committees is that it takes a lot of the work load off of Jimbo's shoulders and that it performs a necessary task rather well. But it is not sufficient, in and of itself, to provide the nurturing and nourishment needed for Wikipedia to grow to full flower. We need something more, like a Mentoring System. Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed

9 10

WHEELER's anti-Semitism
by steven l. rubenstein 05 Jul '04

05 Jul '04

Either I misunderstand the purpose of the list-serve, or I misunderstand Chris Mahan. I thought the purpose of the listserve. I thought one of the purposes was to promote open dialogue about policy. I assume that dialogue involves sharing and discussing values, principles, and methods from different points of view. I took it for granted that any posting to the listserve reflects the author's point of view, and I assumed that it was not only alright but valuable that I present my own point of view. This is what I was doing when I wrote: > > I just don't want to see > > someone > > use Wikipedia as a vehicle for hate speech. So frankly, I do not understand Chris Mahan's response: >Your POV. Of course it is my point of view. From context, CM seems to be suggesting that it is not valid because it is my point of view. Why not? I don't get it. Earlier, CM or someone else suggested that freedom of speech should be one of my values. In order to explain why banning anti-Semitism from Wikipedia would not infringe on freedom of speech, I wrote, >--- "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste(a)ohiou.edu> wrote: > > What WHEELER wrote may very > > well be > > legal -- so he can write it elsewhere. and CM responded, >Why not here? We're a public forum. But then CM wrote >If they're being >destructive, then ban them. which is exactly my point. Hate speech is destructive. Does this now mean that CM agrees with me? Steve Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 5/22/2004

9 20

Re: Stephen Mooney
by Mark Pellegrini 05 Jul '04

05 Jul '04

I have discovered a suprisingly simple supergrand-unified theory that explains God, the Universe, and everything. I would post it here, but alas, the margin is too small :) --Mark

1 0

Re: Stephen Mooney
by Sheldon Rampton 05 Jul '04

05 Jul '04

Stephen Mooney wrote: >I have discovered the Paradigm which integrates science, and which debunks >physics of its misconceptions. So have I! But mine is different from yours, and it's so profound that no one but me can understand it. --Sheldon Rampton

1 0

Re: thank you
by Anthere 05 Jul '04

05 Jul '04

Lir, I think that unfortunately, whatever the rules you might breach or not breach, and whatever Jimbo wish that you be plainly welcome back as a member with full editing rights, it is unfortunately a fact that many members of the english wikipedia are not happy with you being a participant. And admittedly, your attitude just does not help convince them that the benefits you are bringing Wikipedia balance the drawbacks. It might help that you adopt a more positive stance, perhaps not always criticizing so much volunteers for being either too quick or too slow, or too rude or too polite, or too bold or not daring enough. May I suggest that if you want to be treated in an appropriate manner, you might perhaps think carefully about what is appropriate and what is not. Your issue has everything to do with sockpuppets, as Guanaco thought you were these sockpuppets (perhaps guidelines indicating how the community decides that this one is a sock puppet or is not...though we know nothing can really be proved), and as Guanaco also thought sockpuppets were illegal (so perhaps guidelines indicating what is illegal for a sock puppet to do, and what is legal would be good). Policies such as this one should be designed at community level. This is *not* the board job to do so *at all*. There must be a discussion on the wiki itself, with wikipedians, and I guess Sannse can help on this. Or whoever feels that sock puppet management has become a very painful matter now. Also, both Sannse and Ed are members of the MC, and Ed proposed to help you. This was your choice not to accept the proposal. I will add perhaps boldly that, regardless to rules and policies, belonging to a community is essentially being "accepted" by it, with defaults and qualities. It is more a feeling, a perception. But qualities should always compensate defaults. Most of the time, there is no need of crossing the name of a person on the membership list. Banning is really the final indication that a community reject someone, and has to do so officially, but before that happens, a few signs are meaningful and may indicate to a "member" that he might consider just moving on. C A S [name omitted for privacy reasons] <a[name omitted for privacy reasons](a)msn.com> wrote: *would like you to cool down and allow time for things to proceed. **As if, you've had months and months to lift your fingers -- you never intend to do anything. *This week end, we had a meeting in Paris, so essentially, Angela, Jimbo and I were unavailable. **If you are too busy, resign from the board/mediation committee and let someone else do the job. *Was that it had been a not very good move from Guanaco, misunderstanding from his part, but mostly unclear policy with regards to sock puppets. **It has nothing to do with sock puppets; no evidence has been shown that Yuna or YES was a sockpuppet of mine. Regardless of the rules regarding sockpuppets, I don't have one! *Sannse agreed to try to work with others on this policy, so that things are clearer. I thought this was essentially your request **I don't want "Sannse" working with others -- I want the Wikimedia board to get off its ass and start demanding sysops treating regular users in an appropriate manner. *I have no idea of the last events, and frankly, right now, really no time to look at it. **Resign Anthere, resign -- nothing is getting done because you don't have time, and nobody else can do it because you are hogging too many important positions. *I suggest that you explain what happened to the arbitration committee if you really feel that it is important. **The Arbitration Committee refuses to speak with me. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

1 0

Paradigm
by Robert Graham Merkel 05 Jul '04

05 Jul '04

On Mon, Jul 05, 2004 at 05:37:20AM +0000, wikien-l-request(a)Wikipedia.org wrote: > I have discovered the Paradigm which integrates science, and which debunks > physics of its misconceptions. > > An essay titled Debunking Physics and Discovery the Process of the Universe > is posted at http://paradigm.blogharbor.com > > A paradigm is not a theory. A paradigm is a specification of the results of > our observations and experiments. > > All the results of the observations and experiments of physics are specified > by the Paradigm. > > The application of the Paradigm is the future of science. > > I invite your response. > > Stephen Mooney > Mr. Mooney, Wikipedia is a distributed project of thousands of volunteers; it has an extremely loose governance structure. There is no "editorial board" - editorial content is (usually) determined by the consensus of those who are interested in writing about those topics, on the basis of guidelines developed, mostly by consensus, over its history. One guideline that have been with the project virtually since its inception, and on which there is a very strong consensus, has been that Wikipedia is not a venue to publish original research: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research If your work gains the attention of a significant number of people (for instance, through publication in a prominent scientific journal and the consequent further investigation of your ideas by others, or if a book featuring your work becomes popular, or you recieve attention in the mass media, or suchlike), then it will be appropriate for Wikipedia to add material on it. Given that your website with the explanation of your theory dates to four days ago and has not received any attention in either the scientific or general media (indeed, Google suggests that noone has linked to your website yet), at this moment material posted to Wikipedia about your work would likely be removed according to this policy. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Merkel robert.merkel(a)benambra.org http://benambra.org "Sleeping makes me tired" -- Inspector Gadget (Don Adams) --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

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 July 2004