Jimmy Wales wrote:
Everyone take a deep breath. It was pretty out of character for Ed to post a sharp remark like that, and I think he'll quickly make things right with Sheldon.
He hasn't done anything yet to make it right. The guy clearly has an axe to grind about me. He's gone out of his way on more than one occasion to insult me, without any provocation on my part. On this occasion, he called me a liar on completely spurious grounds. I don't think I should be expected to tolerate that without responding.
I wrote:
It's clearly POV and a violation of Wikipedia policy to inject first-person commentary based on church gossip into the actual text of articles.
And Jimbo responded:
Maybe, unless this gossip is documented somewhere as having actually happened. I mean, asserting the content of the gossip as fact isn't good, but reporting on the gossip is fine, if it was important and widespread.
Take a look at it yourself. Here's the verbatim passage from Ed's article on "Sun Myung Moon/tax case":
The government offered to drop all the charges if Rev. Moon would give up his green card (permanent resident visa) and agree never to visit the US again. Rev. Moon preferred to go to trial, professing his belief in the fairness of American justice but saying that he would not have been prosecuted if "his skin had been white or his religion Episcopalian."
Reference, please, for the government's offer and the quote (Sorry, I could not find documentation; it's a story circulated among us UC members -- Ed Poor .)
It's clear from this that Ed could *not* find any documentation to support the assertions he made in the first paragraph. And since when is it proper form for Wikipedians to insert themselves directly into articles with first-person, signed asides? I thought that sort of thing belonged on the Talk page.
If I were editing the above passage, I would write something along the following lines:
According to a version of events popular with members of Moon's church, the government offered to drop the charges against him if he would give up his permanent resident visa and leave the United States permanently. Rev. Moon preferred to go to trial but said that he would not have been prosecuted if his skin had been white or his religion Episcopalian.
I'm not going to make these edits, because I'm not interested in working on articles about Rev. Moon or the Unification Church. The point I'm making is simply that I find it hypocritical for Ed to accuse *me* of dishonesty and bias over an article on global warming that I had barely touched, when Ed himself has made no effort to apply NPOV in his articles about his own church.
Jimbo also wrote:
But I think this is a misreading. I think that his idea is a very good one. All of us, if we are writing in an area where we know we have some strong feelings, should try *hard* to formulate the arguments of the opponents as best we can.
I don't think I've misread Ed's intent. I think he went out of his way to needle me and call me a liar. Ed stated that I was "disingenuous" because I haven't written *his* beliefs into an article on global warming -- an article that I didn't create and to which I had only contributed a single minor edit. I agree with the general principle that we should try to respect the arguments of people whose viewpoints differ from our own. However, Ed's comments about me did not arise from a discussion about those general principles. They were gratuitous comments that had nothing to do with anything I've contributed to Wikipedia or posted to this listserv. He didn't make those comments in the spirit of educating us all about an important general principle. He made them in the spirit of looking for an excuse to attack me and call me a liar, based on any pretext he could find, no matter how flimsy.
There are at least two views of how wikipedia articles should be written -- the competitive view and the co-operative view. Ed is merely (and correctly, I think) advocating for the co-operative view.
Actions speak louder than words. How is it "co-operative" for Ed to look for pretexts with which to publicly impugn my character?
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
Take a look at it yourself. Here's the verbatim passage from Ed's article on "Sun Myung Moon/tax case":
The government offered to drop all the charges if Rev. Moon would give up his green card (permanent resident visa) and agree never to visit the US again. Rev. Moon preferred to go to trial, professing his belief in the fairness of American justice but saying that he would not have been prosecuted if "his skin had been white or his religion Episcopalian."
Reference, please, for the government's offer and the quote (Sorry, I could not find documentation; it's a story circulated among us UC members -- Ed Poor .)
It's clear from this that Ed could *not* find any documentation to support the assertions he made in the first paragraph. And since when is it proper form for Wikipedians to insert themselves directly into articles with first-person, signed asides? I thought that sort of thing belonged on the Talk page.
It does, generally. In the very old days, this is how the tradition of talk pages got started, i.e. to move 'meta-commentary' from the article pages, so that the articles themselves always read like encyclopedia articles.
I'm not going to make these edits, because I'm not interested in working on articles about Rev. Moon or the Unification Church. The point I'm making is simply that I find it hypocritical for Ed to accuse *me* of dishonesty and bias over an article on global warming that I had barely touched, when Ed himself has made no effort to apply NPOV in his articles about his own church.
Well, like I say, I think Ed will make things right with you. You're both good, you're both kind, and whatever disagreements you may have about politics or Moon or whatever, I think we all can agree that NPOV is the way to go, and that saying things that are hurtful to others is not beneficial to our project.
There are at least two views of how wikipedia articles should be written -- the competitive view and the co-operative view. Ed is merely (and correctly, I think) advocating for the co-operative view.
Actions speak louder than words. How is it "co-operative" for Ed to look for pretexts with which to publicly impugn my character?
Well, if that's what happened, then it isn't co-operative. But, Ed's been around here for awhile, and I've seen him in action. Like I say, he'll make things right with you.
--Jimbo