On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Michael Turley wrote:
On 8/23/05, Rob <gamaliel8(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
If I had known we were going to be hairsplitting,
I
would have dressed for the occassion.
Let me rephrase for those determined to argue about
this: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where adherents of
such a hateful and absurd dogma as Nazi-ism should
have no place.
Let's play "fill in the blank".
Let me rephrase for those determined to argue about
this: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where adherents of
such a hateful and absurd dogma as _________ should
have no place.
What word can you put in there that is universally applicable, and
will <u>always</u> make Wikipedia a better place?
I choose to fill in the blank with "prejudice".
Well put, Michael. (For whatever my opinion is worth.)
"Nazi-ism" doesn't fit. As much as we dislike their views, it is
likely that Nazis and neo-Nazis will give us better insight into their
own views, and improve the articles related to those viewpoints.
Question: when groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center wants
to learn more about Neo-Nazi groups, whom do you think they ask
for information?
The solution to POV edits is more people reviewing them, not
pre-banning those we suspect will make them.
Some more questions: if we don't ban an admitted Neo-Nazi, what's
the worse that will happen? Would it be really any different than what
might happen if we allow just anybody to create an account on
Wikipedia -- as we do now?
Our current process has managed to cope with Scientologists, LaRouchies,
& the odd wingnut (for example, Lir & CheeseDreams). Are we afraid that
it can't handle Neo-Nazis?
What's the best that can happen? Maybe this Neo-Nazi isn't as firm
in his beliefs as he might think -- or simply has never been exposed
to other people different from him -- & his experience on Wikipedia
convinces him to abandon these beliefs.
Or maybe no one reading this has ever changed their convictions because
of an exchange of opinions with another person.
Geoff