Hi, Matthew. Sorry for the length, but I couldn't figure out how to make my point clear otherwise.
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 9/20/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
I'm afraid that I don't see the controversy in this whole thing. I do know, however, that there is no one on Wikipedia who could explain it in a couple of paragraphs, with a couple of links, so that an outsider not deeply enmeshed in the sourrounding intrigue might understand.
I feel a lot of the controversy is about the principle of the thing, among those not associated with any of the particular incidents.
That's a great point, and would help explain why this is such an ongoing source of argument. I try to avoid arguments that are just about principles, as they rarely lead anywhere interesting. Well, perhaps not quite. For example, the argument over whether truth or beauty is the higher value is often interesting. But still, I don't expect it to be settled this millennium.
Personally though, I think this dust-up a big deal because of something pretty practical.
When some Wikipedia issue catches my eye, the first thing I do is to dig through the the history to see what's what and who's whom. That's where a lot of my confidence in Wikipedia comes from. First, I got to see how the articles really did improve over time. Then I came to know the people through the records of their on-Wiki history. And finally, I came to trust the system, because it enables anybody to do the same vetting I did.
With recent rise of the BADSIDES stuff, I can't do that, as the record is being edited with a bias, and pressure is applied to people to bias future discussion in the same way. It is breaking one of the fundamental mechanisms through which I have come to trust Wikipedia and its participants.
So, for example, when I hear mention banning links to the AntiSocialMedia.net guy, I go and look at his website. He seems a little kooky, and he sure has an axe to grind, so I start out suspicious of anything he has to say. But there my investigation stops, because there is little or nothing about it on Wikipedia, and I get the impression I will be painted three shades of bad for bringing it up. This leaves me with a basketful of questions and accusations, and no resolution.
The best I can get is that semi-proper authorities, who seem to be much closer personally to one side than the other, tell me they have investigated and that it's all swell. Maybe I'm a little damaged because I came to political awareness in the post-Nixon era, but having faith in authority has never been one of my stronger skills.
So each time one of these suppressed incidents comes to my attention, I trust Wikipedia a little less. Because the record of any conversation may have been censored, I now have to be a little suspicious of almost everything on Wikipedia, especially if it involves someone who's socially prominent enough to make that kind of censorship happen.
Really, if it were just me, it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm a minor editor and even more minor administrator; Wikipedia will get along without my trust. But what it won't get along without is the trust of new editors and the general public. And I firmly believe that having our own damnatio memoriae policy will harm that broader trust, just like it has for me.
William