On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:35 AM, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I frankly am extremely confused at why so many people
are reacting
significantly worse to this than prior incidents.
The effects were not more severe this time, if anything they were less.
The number of people involved was less not more.
The group being more mainstream lessens the danger that their edits
are further off base, though it does make them harder to detect
sometimes.
I thought we explained. This was more dangerous because the people involved
were more prepared with methods to subvert our processes. I specifically
said that the effects were not severe, but they could have been. Everyone
involved with this is quite aware of how vulnerable we are to any group of
this sort.
I am not sure you quite understand how POV-pushing works, now. If a group is
more mainstream, that does not mean that an article can wind up looking less
slanted. Or, for that matter, that a BLP can wind up less of an attack page
- BLPs of marginally notable academics involved in the I-P conflict were
their special target.
This is not comparable to issues where we have large
on-wiki disputes
between competing factions, such as Pakistan/India. There is little
risk of policy subversion when the issue is so contentious that
everyone is watching all the time. That is not to say that those
areas are not hotbeds of contention and problems - but they're not the
same.
This is indeed not comparable. In Pakistan-India, or Armenia-Azerbaijan, a
random onlooker can attempt to mediate or fix neutrality without always
being accused instantly of having his or her own POV on the subject. In
addition, in those real-world disputes there are as yet few organisations
that are devoted to shaping the public message the way that American
presidential campaigns, for example, are. And finally, those disputes are
unlikely to focus on trying to convert the random wikipedia reader, the way
that CAMERA specifically did.
The only explanation that makes sense to me is that those who feel
very strongly that this was uniquely severe are those who also are
very strongly opposed to CAMERA's viewpoint on the Palestinean/Israeli
conflict.
Is there anyone who either is neutral on that point or pro-Israel who
thinks this was a terrifically bad incident, beyond that of other
advocacy groups incidents we've had?
Typical. I rest my case.
FWIW, the only thing that I object to about CAMERA are their tactics. But
that's presumably not good enough. You can't look at DGG's concerns, or
mine, check that we spend time on WP in difficult areas but not really part
of this particular conflict, and say, OK, they might know what they're
talking out more than I clearly do. No, instead, you choose to imply that
we're concerned because of real-world POV. This is remarkable. Assume bad
faith, anyone?
RR