--- Abe Sokolov sokolov47@yahoo.com wrote:
I thank Ray Saintonge for reading - and rereading - my lengthy comments, despite the lack of copyediting for typos, and the formatting problems that I can't seem to figure out (I've only been having trouble with the margins on the Wiki mailing list). Although he understood all my points, the assumptions of his counter-arguments are unrealistic.
His comments, however, highlight my need to further explain why there's no way that removing RK would do anything to bring the Israel-related articles under the influence of the idealized set of contributors whom Stan had described.
First, consider the central cause of all flame wars. It's important to note that by and large, the more controversial an article gets on Wikipedia, the more partisan the core group of contributors becomes (e.g., the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal, abortion, and Communism - just to name some recent and never ending flame wars). This is an iron-clad relationship that few who contribute even scantly to Wiki articles on history and politics can deny. I acknowledge that other flame wars are far less prolonged and vicious. While patterns of more manageable disputes over parallel the ones over Israeli-Palestinian neutrality, the others are less prone to zero-sum games (see the Wiki article on game theory if this term�s unfamiliar � btw, sorry for habitual jargon of the social sciences). They usually far less emotionally charged, and/or the structure of the antagonists is not polarized.
I acknowledge that polarized factions is not unique to the Israel-related articles. There is polarizing left-versus-right political squabbling all the time on many articles, but the stakes are not as great personally to users. Disputes are channeled toward something narrowed (such as a particular policy), rather than an 'us versus them' struggle. For example, consider the recent disputes over privatization, which I�ve been mediating. Lir and Daniel Quinlan hold irreconcilable views on the subject: one brings in an anti-government dogma, the other an anti-capitalist one. But there was no personal animosity expressed on the talk page (they didn�t even cross paths � just channeling their mixed feeling though me on the talk page).
Jews worldwide, however, are haunted by the past and ever-vigilant when criticism of Israel might be imbued with anti-Semitism. Conversely, Palestinians have suffered declining living standards in the context of Israeli heavy-handedness, displacement, and marginalization in their homeland and in any setting of any refugee camp. These two collective identities are not �irrational� or �insane� when individual channel those frustrations toward hating the enemy; and we should expert their champions outside the Middle East to quarrel in every forum in which they are both present at the same time.
On other controversial articles, emotionalism can run high too, but the structure of the disputes is rarely so polarizing. For example, there is often conflict over a minority view that challenges an analysis, the balance, and/or the tone of a Wiki article. However, you don�t inherently attract two equally-large homogenous groups pitted against each other.
Among the conflict-prone articles on Wikipedia, perhaps only abortion attracts the same level of polarization and bitterness as the Israel-related articles. But this is largely a single article, along with a handful of others that go along with it, not close to receiving the level of attention garnered by the hundreds of articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian disputes.
Within the freedom of Wikipedia (which opens the doors to partisans), the fanacticism and polarization of the two sides on the Palestinian question, the partisans can gravitate toward the zero-sum conflict demanded by their fanatical � and often quite understandable considering where they are both coming from - worldviews. Thus, we'd have almost daily Mid East flame wars regardless of whether or not RK's around.
Yes, theoretically RK would be less "effective in presenting [his] view[s] than a large number of moderates." But the �moderates� are always going to be marginalized - with or without RK: the large share of extremists on both sides will always make more noise than the "silent majority" (not that I like to borrow Richard Nixon's '68 campaign slogans). A new RK can arrive any day. Even worse, since the majority of the core contributors are also partisans, RK's absence would just shatter the workable balance of power between the opposing forces. Yes, we would like to have a scholarly, congenial lot rather than what we have, but we�re to going to get it. And yes, Stan and Ray are correct that the flame wars have driven off a number of users; but this was the only likely outcome anyway.
In that regard, I do admit that Ray has good reasons to express concerns over my "[endorsement] of bully tactics and intimidation." I firmly agree as much as anyone with Ray that "failing to confront these people does not make the world better or safer." RK must always be prodded to ensure that he�s reasonably acing in line, but not so constrained that RK can�t be RK. That's been the status quo for over a year, and it's been working.
However, we should consider lax enforcement policy in light of this context - with the caveat that RK is reprimanded promptly each time (and with so many enemies, he�s under enough scrutiny). The Israeli-Palestinian articles should be regarded as an exception, calling for a measured enforcement of Wiki policy (and every institution doesn�t enforce all laws and guidelines to the letter � just consider all the arcane, non-enforced laws on the books right now everywhere). There should be a tacit, unstated understanding that the habits and customs among their core group of Israel-related contributors are going to be more a function of the emotionalism and fervency of the real-world Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and not the conventions of Wikipedia as a whole. However, I�m not saying that RK deserves preferential treatment. Just don�t ban him, and let�s to more to acknowledge that he�s a indispensable pillar of the Wiki community.
I'd also point out in closing that the ideals of the Wikipedia project would favor my laissez-faire, less elitist, and more freedom-oriented approach to this matter. Little heavy handed intervention from the top (by developers such as Erik), combined with the free-for-all squabbling from below, has been working. Impartial experts need not dominate the Israeli-Palestinian articles (which would be Stan�s elitist ideal) because the struggle and fervency among all the partisans winds up forging good, neutral articles after a lot of noise has been made. The problem with little expertise and a lot of opinion is rectified, not caused, by stalemated edit wars among the partisans - right now we have a lot of horrible articles that could use some antagonism to whip them into shape. RK and his edit wars are part of the solution, not the problem.
You're assuming that just because someone has a strong POV about something that they can't be impartial on Wikipedia. Even though I have a strong opinion about most subjects, I don't call people names like anti-semites. I also try to hide POV behind choice of words (such as "some people think ..." and calling people something without bias, not necessarilly what other people call them or what they want to be called (but one of them)). Being an impartial expert is a good thing still, even if it is not necessary as you said. I'm definitely not impartial or an expert, but I think I can still contribute in an factual NPOV fashion. Maybe this is elitist, but I think that anyone can, for one moment, write their POV down in a form that would imply absolute correctness. LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com