This issue is really getting tiresome. Danny, a Wikipedia
administrator, is again harassing me. Danny keeps jumping
into articles where a discussion about the content is
taking place...and instead of offering constructive
criticism about how the article should be changed, he makes
multiple ad homenim attacks towards me.
For instance, consider the recent issue over what should be
mentioned in the article on [[Maimonides]] (Rabbi Moses ben
Maimon.) I have been doing a lot of reading on this issue
for a number of years. I am trying to have the points of
view of several mainstream Maimonidean scholars included in
the article. Here is the situation, pre-Danny:
I brought forth quotes and citations to illustrate the
point of view of these people, who are generally regarded
as experts in the field. In contrast, Jayjg won't let me
quote anybody, and is making the claim that this is part of
some Orthodox versus non-Orthodox struggle (It isn't, and I
do not understand where his idea comes from; ironically, I
haven't quoted any figures from non-Orthodox schools of
thought!) I have repeatedly told Jay that I would be happy
for this article to include points of view from people with
other views, and I am still waiting for him to bring
examples. He hasn't offered any at all.
Thus, the only points of view mentioned so far are the ones
from the sources I brought.
JFW had a different complaint. He says that he believes
that somewhere, some Orthodox rabbis must have written on
this topic, and that we should include their views as well.
This isn't a problem, as I totally agree with JFW. I would
be very happy if brought forth their views on these issues.
So far he hasn't. But I look forward to learning from any
other points of view that JFW may yet find. This is how
Wikipedia articles grow and improve. No problem, right?
But into this Danny started making ad homenim attacks.
Danny interjected:
Oh, but RK, you mentioned that you frequent the
JTS library. They certainly have an Or Sameach, as
would any yeshiva in New York and Westchester. For
people who are genuinely intersted in Jewish
scholarship,
they are far more accessible than any journal you can
quote.
Or are you incapable of conducting
"scholarship" that
does
not support your POV
This personal attack is a violation of Wikipedia standards,
yet Danny uses his position as an administrator to get away
with repeated personal abuse. He is saying that I am
dishonestly not reporting points-of-view that I do not
agree with.
(A) That is a total lie, and a defamation of character.
(B) Curiously, Danny is unable to disagree with a single
sentence I contributed; he himself offers no reason to
doubt that the quotes I offered are accurate. He certainly
offers no other citations.
(C) If Danny thinks that other important points of view
exist, then by all means go find them and help contribue to
the article. But do not slander a Wikipedia contributor for
not including points of view that they are not even aware
of! We have thousands of contributors who bring new points
of view every day. Do we harass them for not bringing
counter-points-of-view? No! We'd drive away all of
contributors if we did this! If we think something is
missing, we simply add it. Is this unreasonable?
(D) Danny is lying about my ability to go to a library and
look up the specific Hebrew sources that JFW requested.
See, Danny and I have spoken on the telephone many times,
and he knows that I do not speak Hebrew. When I want to
understand what a Hebrew text means, I go to established
authorities known for expertise in translation, and I do
not attempt to translate it myself. Danny certainly had no
problem with any other user on Wikipedia doing this. Why am
I the only person who has to read ancient Hebrew in order
to write on Judaica articles? Do all of our contributors to
Christianity articles have to read ancient Greek? That is
just insane.
(E) Danny writes "As for the topic at hand, RK, since the
vast majority of material on this topic is in Hebrew, as
are all the primary sources, you seem incapable of
conducting any 'serious scholarship.' " There are two huge
problems with this personal attack
* Danny is confused about the difference between original
scholarship, which we DO NOT accept on Wikipedia, and
describing the views of scholars, which is encouraged. I am
quoting established authorities and summarizing their
views, as is standard for Wikipedia. If he really disagrees
the views that I have described, then he is free to look
for other views to add. Isn't that always the standard
operating procedure? He should not dishonestly attribute
what I am writing as my own original research, in order to
impugn the views of scholars he may disagree with.
* Danny is making factualy false claims. A huge amount of
scholarship on this topic is in English, by many of the
world's leading scholars. Any claim to the contray is a bad
joke. Just go to the huge JTS or HUC libraries in
Manhattan, and you will see that half of their collections
are in the English language, including many fine scholarly
journals. In fact, more Judaica is written in English than
in any other language in the world. Danny's factually
false claim to the contrary does not improve the article,
it is just more harassment of me.
Danny's personal attacks have been a long-term problem, and
we really need to do something about this. He needs to stop
following me around from article to article making ad
homenim comments. Being a Wikipedia administrator means
being a role model, not someone who uses a personal grudge
to harass users.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail