The problem with articles like "Violence against Israelis" is not so much that the material they contain is false, but that the topic of the articles is unfixably POV. People like Lance6Wins and MathKnight who devote many hours to maintaining these lists do not do it out of a desire to make Wikipedia a fine encyclopedia. They are on a political mission, and do not consider that the NPOV rule is relevant to them.
If these people were well-motivated, they would also be including violence against Palestinians as well. Try to find the following in Wikipedia, for example (I went to the web site of the Israeli human-rights organization B'Tselem and entered a random month):
8 February 2003 Mustafa Ibrahim Abu 'Adwan, age 10, died of wounds inflicted by IDF gunfire in Khan Younis, in the south of The Gaza Strip, on 7 February, 2003. Did not participate in fighting
11 February 2003 Hassan al-Ghoul, age 8, from Qalqiliya, killed by IDF gunfire shot in response to stones and molotov cocktails thrown at soldiers, in Qalqiliya, The West Bank. Did not participate in fighting
And so on for a total of 11 children killed by Israeli forces in April 2003. The list of adults killed, including both combatants and non-combatants, is much longer. April 2003 was not an unusual month.
The reason these are not listed in Wikipedia is that there is nobody with the dedication and time to match the efforts of Lance6Wins and MathKnight. (Actually, such a person or persons would need several times as much dedication because several times as many Palestinians are killed as Israelis.) Would we want such a competition between lists anyway? From experience we know that articles like this cannot be deleted. My preferred solution would be to kick out the political fanatics, and good riddance, but it won't happen. The problem in fact will not be solved and this open sore will remain. Sorry to bring bad news.
Zero.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
I don't have a problem with POV, but I do with detailed listings of each incident and casualty. There is violence against Israelis. An encyclopedia article would present the statistics, perhaps several examples, but not extensive lists. Corresponding lists of Palestinian grievances are also inappropriate, although I do think articles about Israeli locations should include information regarding previous names of the place.
Fred
From: zero 0000 nought_0000@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 06:14:05 -0700 (PDT) To: wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Articles like "Violence against Israelis"
The problem with articles like "Violence against Israelis" is not so much that the material they contain is false, but that the topic of the articles is unfixably POV. People like Lance6Wins and MathKnight who devote many hours to maintaining these lists do not do it out of a desire to make Wikipedia a fine encyclopedia. They are on a political mission, and do not consider that the NPOV rule is relevant to them.
If these people were well-motivated, they would also be including violence against Palestinians as well. Try to find the following in Wikipedia, for example (I went to the web site of the Israeli human-rights organization B'Tselem and entered a random month):
8 February 2003 Mustafa Ibrahim Abu 'Adwan, age 10, died of wounds inflicted by IDF gunfire in Khan Younis, in the south of The Gaza Strip, on 7 February, 2003. Did not participate in fighting
11 February 2003 Hassan al-Ghoul, age 8, from Qalqiliya, killed by IDF gunfire shot in response to stones and molotov cocktails thrown at soldiers, in Qalqiliya, The West Bank. Did not participate in fighting
And so on for a total of 11 children killed by Israeli forces in April 2003. The list of adults killed, including both combatants and non-combatants, is much longer. April 2003 was not an unusual month.
The reason these are not listed in Wikipedia is that there is nobody with the dedication and time to match the efforts of Lance6Wins and MathKnight. (Actually, such a person or persons would need several times as much dedication because several times as many Palestinians are killed as Israelis.) Would we want such a competition between lists anyway? From experience we know that articles like this cannot be deleted. My preferred solution would be to kick out the political fanatics, and good riddance, but it won't happen. The problem in fact will not be solved and this open sore will remain. Sorry to bring bad news.
Zero.
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
I don't have a problem with POV, but I do with detailed listings of each incident and casualty. There is violence against Israelis. An encyclopedia article would present the statistics, perhaps several examples, but not extensive lists. Corresponding lists of Palestinian grievances are also inappropriate, although I do think articles about Israeli locations should include information regarding previous names of the place.
Not to mention that compiling such a list is clearly primary research: it is not easy at all to determine a complete and accurate list of casualties on either side, and until someone publishes an authoritative such list (or at least one that has been well researched), we shouldn't publish one that's simply made up out of thin air, with some inconsistent citations to news stories people happened to run across.
-Mark
Some of this discussion seems to be made up of thin air. There are several sources attached to article that provide information
--- Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
I don't have a problem with POV, but I do with
detailed listings of each
incident and casualty. There is violence against
Israelis. An encyclopedia
article would present the statistics, perhaps
several examples, but not
extensive lists. Corresponding lists of Palestinian
grievances are also
inappropriate, although I do think articles about
Israeli locations should
include information regarding previous names of the
place.
Not to mention that compiling such a list is clearly primary research: it is not easy at all to determine a complete and accurate list of casualties on either side, and until someone publishes an authoritative such list (or at least one that has been well researched), we shouldn't publish one that's simply made up out of thin air, with some inconsistent citations to news stories people happened to run across.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Fred Bauder wrote:
I don't have a problem with POV, but I do with detailed listings of each incident and casualty. There is violence against Israelis. An encyclopedia article would present the statistics, perhaps several examples, but not extensive lists. Corresponding lists of Palestinian grievances are also inappropriate, although I do think articles about Israeli locations should include information regarding previous names of the place.
Perhaps these lists for all sides are the kind of thing that belongs on an expanded 9/11 Memorial project.
Ec
Yes, it could be expanded to include victims of the Gulag and of the Holocaust as well. There does seem to be quite a lot of energy for compiling these lists among survivors.
Fred
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 15:31:20 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Articles like "Violence against Israelis"
Fred Bauder wrote:
I don't have a problem with POV, but I do with detailed listings of each incident and casualty. There is violence against Israelis. An encyclopedia article would present the statistics, perhaps several examples, but not extensive lists. Corresponding lists of Palestinian grievances are also inappropriate, although I do think articles about Israeli locations should include information regarding previous names of the place.
Perhaps these lists for all sides are the kind of thing that belongs on an expanded 9/11 Memorial project.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:00:16 -0600, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I don't have a problem with POV, but I do with detailed listings of each incident and casualty. There is violence against Israelis. An encyclopedia article would present the statistics, perhaps several examples, but not extensive lists. Corresponding lists of Palestinian grievances are also inappropriate, although I do think articles about Israeli locations should include information regarding previous names of the place.
If we start including previous names, we'll start having the same headaches we have in those Eastern Europe articles. There should be some kind of standard for deciding those issues, and probably is, but we don't need another set of authors failing to follow it.
Nathan
On 30 Aug 2004, at 2:14 pm, zero 0000 wrote:
The reason these are not listed in Wikipedia is that there is nobody with the dedication and time to match the efforts of Lance6Wins and MathKnight. (Actually, such a person or persons would need several times as much dedication because several times as many Palestinians are killed as Israelis.)
I don't know about lists, but what you mention is an interesting problem, and not just for Wikipedia, but for all societies in regard to the internet. Our economic system, and the plight of people such as the Palestinians, means that access too and creation of information on the internet is an extremely unequal affair.
Christiaan
Kurt Jansson wrote:
Christiaan Briggs schrieb:
Our economic system, and the plight of people such as the Palestinians, means that access too and creation of information on the internet is an extremely unequal affair.
"Extremely unequal" compared to which other mass medium?
I wasn't comparing. My interest is in Wikipedia. In any case, such comparisons do not make things inevitable and therefore unworthy of thought.
The very idea of Wikipedia, it seems to me, is to avoid the dominance of any one group or person. That it does such a good job of this is actually all the more reason to keep in mind that it is not perfect and why.
Christiaan
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 18:11:20 +0100, Christiaan Briggs christiaan@yurkycross.co.uk wrote:
The very idea of Wikipedia, it seems to me, is to avoid the dominance of any one group or person.
I thought it was to create an encyclopedia.
No. However, your points while well taken, point to the need for those who recognize the bias built in to the system to do what they can to counteract them. But there is simply no way we can provide internet access to those who languish in North Korean concentration camps or who live in traditional tribal African societies. Others must speak for them.
Fred
From: Christiaan Briggs christiaan@yurkycross.co.uk Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 09:39:46 +0100 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Articles like "Violence against Israelis"
phil hunt wrote:
The very idea of Wikipedia, it seems to me, is to avoid the dominance of any one group or person.
I thought it was to create an encyclopedia.
Right, just another encyclopedia?
Christiaan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Exactly my point, thanks. And the more people that recognise it the better.
Christiaan
On 3 Sep 2004, at 12:06 pm, Fred Bauder wrote:
No. However, your points while well taken, point to the need for those who recognize the bias built in to the system to do what they can to counteract them. But there is simply no way we can provide internet access to those who languish in North Korean concentration camps or who live in traditional tribal African societies. Others must speak for them.
Fred
From: Christiaan Briggs christiaan@yurkycross.co.uk Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 09:39:46 +0100 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Articles like "Violence against Israelis"
phil hunt wrote:
The very idea of Wikipedia, it seems to me, is to avoid the dominance of any one group or person.
I thought it was to create an encyclopedia.
Right, just another encyclopedia?
Christiaan
Ok, and once we recognize it, what do we do about it? Destroy our culture? Overthrow our governments? Wear hair shirts? Make a mass move to the Third World?
RickK
Christiaan Briggs christiaan@yurkycross.co.uk wrote: Exactly my point, thanks. And the more people that recognise it the better.
Christiaan
On 3 Sep 2004, at 12:06 pm, Fred Bauder wrote:
No. However, your points while well taken, point to the need for those who recognize the bias built in to the system to do what they can to counteract them. But there is simply no way we can provide internet access to those who languish in North Korean concentration camps or who live in traditional tribal African societies. Others must speak for them.
Fred
From: Christiaan Briggs Reply-To: English Wikipedia Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 09:39:46 +0100 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Articles like "Violence against Israelis"
phil hunt wrote:
The very idea of Wikipedia, it seems to me, is to avoid the dominance of any one group or person.
I thought it was to create an encyclopedia.
Right, just another encyclopedia?
Christiaan
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
Well, the affirmative action has already been taken in this instance; the creation of wiki. Simply being aware is all I'm saying. Fred has already explained why.
Christiaan
On 3 Sep 2004, at 6:07 pm, Rick wrote:
Ok, and once we recognize it, what do we do about it? Destroy our culture? Overthrow our governments? Wear hair shirts? Make a mass move to the Third World?
RickK
Christiaan Briggs christiaan@yurkycross.co.uk wrote: Exactly my point, thanks. And the more people that recognise it the better.
Christiaan
On 3 Sep 2004, at 12:06 pm, Fred Bauder wrote:
No. However, your points while well taken, point to the need for those who recognize the bias built in to the system to do what they can to counteract them. But there is simply no way we can provide internet access to those who languish in North Korean concentration camps or who live in traditional tribal African societies. Others must speak for them.
Fred
From: Christiaan Briggs Reply-To: English Wikipedia Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 09:39:46 +0100 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Articles like "Violence against Israelis"
phil hunt wrote:
The very idea of Wikipedia, it seems to me, is to avoid the dominance of any one group or person.
I thought it was to create an encyclopedia.
Right, just another encyclopedia?
Christiaan
I know one thing, I shouldn't be using my work email to have these discussions!! :(
Christiaan
No, but we do need to recognize the bias built into the system and compensate for it as much as we are able. To bring it home, many millions are incarcerated here in the United States in our own "Gulag". To the extent posible, those who have some contact and knowledge of this situation need to present "their side" of the story.
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:07:00 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Articles like "Violence against Israelis"
Ok, and once we recognize it, what do we do about it? Destroy our culture? Overthrow our governments? Wear hair shirts? Make a mass move to the Third World?
RickK
Christiaan Briggs christiaan@yurkycross.co.uk wrote: Exactly my point, thanks. And the more people that recognise it the better.
Christiaan
Fred Bauder wrote:
No, but we do need to recognize the bias built into the system and compensate for it as much as we are able. To bring it home, many millions are incarcerated here in the United States in our own "Gulag". To the extent posible, those who have some contact and knowledge of this situation need to present "their side" of the story.
Hopefully just by presenting verifiable facts, with a minimum of spinning it. A lot of our articles that have had little-known-but-true facts added to them start to read a lot like leftist blogging, with a strong undertone of "THIS IS WHAT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW!!!!". It's often not explicitly stated, but it's irritating when you can obviously tell the political leanings of the person who wrote the article just through a casual reading. I usually stop reading when I realize whoever wrote a particular article is trying to convince me of his or her viewpoint.
FWIW, the use of that Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam Hussein's hand is a common culprit. It belongs some places, but it shows up a lot more places than it belongs, as if someone is really trying to work it in everywhere. Some of the circumcision stuff also reads like it was written by anti-circumcision activists. The tone is just wrong, even if the facts (and even the conclusions) are fine: you can tell when an article was written by someone who has a strong personal opinion about the matter. Generally, it'd be nice if people avoided editing articles they had a very strong personal opinion about, or at least let someone who didn't care much do a thorough re-editing afterwards.
-Mark
But, you see, they really don't want you to know.
Fred
From: Delirium delirium@hackish.org Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 17:38:58 -0400 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Articles like "Violence against Israelis"
No, but we do need to recognize the bias built into the system and compensate for it as much as we are able. To bring it home, many millions are incarcerated here in the United States in our own "Gulag". To the extent posible, those who have some contact and knowledge of this situation need to present "their side" of the story.
Hopefully just by presenting verifiable facts, with a minimum of spinning it. A lot of our articles that have had little-known-but-true facts added to them start to read a lot like leftist blogging, with a strong undertone of "THIS IS WHAT THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW!!!!".
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 17:38:58 -0400, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
It's often not explicitly stated, but it's irritating when you can obviously tell the political leanings of the person who wrote the article just through a casual reading.
That's a pretty good indicator of when an article has POV problems.
FWIW, the use of that Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam Hussein's hand is a common culprit. It belongs some places, but it shows up a lot more places than it belongs, as if someone is really trying to work it in everywhere. Some of the circumcision stuff also reads like it was written by anti-circumcision activists. The tone is just wrong, even if the facts (and even the conclusions) are fine: you can tell when an article was written by someone who has a strong personal opinion about the matter.
Many (most, probably) Wikipedians have strong personal opinions about things. It's best if they have self-knowledge about this and can consciously restrain an POV-pushing that they might subconsciously do.
Generally, it'd be nice if people avoided editing articles they had a very strong personal opinion about, or at least let someone who didn't care much do a thorough re-editing afterwards.
Of course, people tend to edit articles about subjects they are interested in. I'm not particularly interested in curcumcision, for example, and have never read that article -- so obviously I'm not going to have edited it.
Delirium stated for the record:
Generally, it'd be nice if people avoided editing articles they had a very strong personal opinion about, or at least let someone who didn't care much do a thorough re-editing afterwards.
There's something rather odd about the idea that we should only edit articles we don't really care about, and avoid working on articles that we do. For one thing, most people are more knowledgeable about things they have "strong personal opinion[s] about," and those "who [do]n't care much" tend to be less knowledgeable.
I agree that NPOV is our ideal. I disagree that avoiding matters we are passionate about is the way to strive toward that ideal.
-- Sean Barrett | Yes, I am the last man to have walked on the sean@epoptic.com | moon, and that's a very dubious and disappointing | honor. It's been far too long. --Gene Cernan
Sean Barrett wrote:
I agree that NPOV is our ideal. I disagree that avoiding matters we are passionate about is the way to strive toward that ideal.
I think it depends on the person, and each of us should consider our own strengths and weaknesses in this regard. I would personally have a hard time writing NPOV articles on some topics that I care a lot about. But I would not have a hard time writing NPOV articles on some other topics that I *also* care a lot about.
--Jimbo
Here's another example, regarding a new book published by someone who managed to survive a particular situation, institutions for the handicapped in Russia.
It has been decribed by one critic thusly, "This book is today's 'Gulag Archipelago,' a plea to ordinary people not to close themselves off to the truth and reality."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/04/books/04gall.html?pagewanted=1&th
Fred
From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 11:20:30 -0600 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Articles like "Violence against Israelis"
No, but we do need to recognize the bias built into the system and compensate for it as much as we are able. To bring it home, many millions are incarcerated here in the United States in our own "Gulag". To the extent posible, those who have some contact and knowledge of this situation need to present "their side" of the story.
Fred
phil hunt wrote:
The very idea of Wikipedia, it seems to me, is to avoid the dominance of any one group or person.
I thought it was to create an encyclopedia.
It is my view that the second requires the first. That is, in order to create a high quality and neutral encyclopedia, it is important to avoid the dominance of any one group or person.
These two things are not in conflict, they are part of a principled whole.
--Jimbo