----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Snow" wikipedia@earthlink.net To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:50:31 -0800
JAY JG wrote:
From: "Charles Matthews" charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com
Jimbo wrote
I do not endorse the view, a view held as far as I know only by a very tiny minority, that Wikipedia is anti-elitist or anti-expert in any way. If anything, we are *extremely* elitist but anti-credentialist. That is, we seek thoughtful intelligent people willing to do the very hard work of getting it right, and we don't accept anything less than that. PhDs are valuable evidence of that, and attracting and retraining academic specialists is a valid goal.
I think Jimbo perhaps meant 'retaining', though in my case 'retraining' rings a bell, also.
"Restraining" might also apply. :-O
Though if they've been properly retrained, meaning they abide by the spirit of Wikipedia's policies, no further restraint should be necessary.
An amusing comment (though I see no smiley) but I think it goes to the core of the problem. The strength of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, and supposedly the forces of right will outlast the forces of wrong (as it were).
As with censorship, when we "restrain" some users, the question is who is to be restrained, who proposes the restraining, who decides on the restraining, and who enforces the restraining.
Do not tell me these rules are applied equally. I don't edit certain articles anymore because I'll research an edit, back it up with sources, and bring the information down to an NPOV minimum. But how many like me realize that hours of work will be relentlessly reversed by the majority bias on the subject? That's the weakness of Wikipedia.
Of course, one will say "that's Cecropia's OPINION that his writing in NPOV." Well yes, and we are too close to our opinions to always catch our own biases. However, most anyone who has ever written more than a church fund-raising recipe for money knows when they are presenting something in a neutral fashion, in an advocacy fashion, in an aggresive fashion, or are writing a puff piece.
--Cecropia
Jim Cecropia wrote:
Though if they've been properly retrained, meaning they abide by
the spirit of Wikipedia's policies, no further restraint should be necessary.
An amusing comment (though I see no smiley) but I think it goes to the core of the problem. The strength of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it, and supposedly the forces of right will outlast the forces of wrong (as it were).
I detect a bit of Miltonian optimism there, perhaps as a form of mainstream Christian theology. I would settle for a good karmic balance.
As with censorship, when we "restrain" some users, the question is who is to be restrained, who proposes the restraining, who decides on the restraining, and who enforces the restraining.
The risk of Juvenal delinquency is always there.
Do not tell me these rules are applied equally. I don't edit certain articles anymore because I'll research an edit, back it up with sources, and bring the information down to an NPOV minimum. But how many like me realize that hours of work will be relentlessly reversed by the majority bias on the subject? That's the weakness of Wikipedia.
All editors are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Of course, one will say "that's Cecropia's OPINION that his writing in NPOV." Well yes, and we are too close to our opinions to always catch our own biases. However, most anyone who has ever written more than a church fund-raising recipe for money knows when they are presenting something in a neutral fashion, in an advocacy fashion, in an aggresive fashion, or are writing a puff piece.
This refreshing honesty is hard to drink. I once had a chat with a person who had been in West Africa with Doctors Without Borders. His project was to provide clean drinking water to rural villages. The fresh water was rejected by the inhabitants, It seems that this water was not as sweet as the water from their old dung-polluted wells.
Ec
I am not familiar with your editing nor do I know which articles you edit. I can only encourage you to bring the issues you are speaking of here to the attention of the community through the dispute resolution process. Of which the first step is negotiation on the talk pages and on user talk pages. You do not have to make a bit fuss, just keep a log of your edits, their removal, your talk page comments regarding your edits and their removal, etc. You need to keep this log in terms of dates and diffs, (please get back to me if you don't understand what I mean by diffs).
You say you are being reversed by "majority bias". That can mean you are trying to follow the NPOV policy or that you are violating it depending on exactly what is involved. If the majority thinks London is the capital of Japan that's one thing, if they think the United States of America can do no wrong that is another. We need to see it.
Now, on your way, don't call other editors assholes (or the equivalent), don't characterize their edits as stupid (or the equivalent) and don't revert over and over (an occasional revert accompanied by changes others might suggest is acceptable). That way you can come to the final steps without fear of the arbitrators turning on you and saying you are the problem yourself, "Get out of here."
Following these steps will take some time, perhaps a few months, by the time you get to arbitration you will have built a track record which will reduce that risk.
In the meantime you can improve your negotiation and research skills, try out mediation and learn how to marshal evidence.
I make these suggestions because the problem you speak of is important and needs to be addressed. I hope you have the patience and courage to pursue the matter.
I will conceed that in certain areas the problem you speak of actually exists. However you need to name names and point to specific edits for anyone to do anything about it. We may fail to adequately address the problem, but we are willing to try.
Fred
From: "Jim Cecropia" jcecropia@mail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 00:34:49 -0400 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
Do not tell me these rules are applied equally. I don't edit certain articles anymore because I'll research an edit, back it up with sources, and bring the information down to an NPOV minimum. But how many like me realize that hours of work will be relentlessly reversed by the majority bias on the subject? That's the weakness of Wikipedia.