Rich Holton writes:
It seems to me that there are two separate but related
issues
at hand:
- Banning uses who make threats; and
- Banning users due to their professed beliefs or
associations.
For me, the first is beyond question. We even ban users
for
making legal threats. If someone makes a threat to
health,
life, family, safety, or even to privacy, that user
should
be dealt with swiftly and emphatically. Such behavior has
no
place on Wikipedia.
I am in complete agreement.
However, the second is also beyond question -- in the negative. There is no way to reconcile such banning of contributors by POV with Wikipedia's mission and culture. How would we be able to claim NPOV when certain groups are not allowed to participate?.
In general, I agree. For most people, in most groups, this would be true. Yet some people are members of groups whose goal is that which you described in issue 1 - part of their goal is to make such threats! If someone is a member of an organization whose very goal is to make threats - and eventually carry them out - then (in these cases) wouldn't we be obligated to ban such users?
How can we say that it is wrong to make threats, let alone harm people - but then allow Wikipedia to be used as a forum to help strengthen Nazis and other groups who do make threats as policy, and who do carry out violent acts?
There is no God-given right to use a Wiki or work on an encyclopedia. We have a rather open-minded editorial policy, and it does not constitute censorship. Thus, we should not allow "contributors" whose admitted endgoal is to intimidate, or to incite violence. If we scare away the blacks, the Jews, the gays and the Catholics by opening up this encyclopedia to violent hate groups, then what are we left with? We will end up limiting the free speech of the many other people who will certainly be driven away, and we will be damaging our own reputation for no good reason.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Robert wrote:
There is no God-given right to use a Wiki or work on an encyclopedia. We have a rather open-minded editorial policy, and it does not constitute censorship. Thus, we should not allow "contributors" whose admitted endgoal is to intimidate, or to incite violence. If we scare away the blacks, the Jews, the gays and the Catholics by opening up this encyclopedia to violent hate groups, then what are we left with? We will end up limiting the free speech of the many other people who will certainly be driven away, and we will be damaging our own reputation for no good reason.
But we're going to scare off people no matter what we do. *Not* banning openly gay activists scares off already a large portion of the earth's population, namely conservative Christians and Muslims. Obviously that isn't a good enough argument for banning gay activists from the encyclopedia. There's a whole list of mutually antagonistic groups, differing mostly in degree of antagonism.
Which of these groups would qualify? -- Supporters of segregation. E.g. black separatists; white separatists; supporters of "population transfer" of Palestinians out of Israel; etc. -- Supporters of theocracy. E.g. supporters of the Iranian government; the Taliban; and other such groups. -- Supporters of Sharia law. -- Supporters of terrorism as a legitimate military/political tool, at least in some cases. (Note that Noam Chomsky and like-minded people would fall under here.) -- People who argue that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural. -- People who argue things that are considered "blasphemous" by many religions.
The list could go on, but with just this list here, we've already cut out a very large percentage of the earth's population. And one could easily make the argument that e.g. supporting Sharia law is directly threatening women and non-Muslims in the same way black and white nationalists threaten non-blacks and non-whites.
-Mark
--- Robert rkscience100@yahoo.com wrote:
Rich Holton writes:
<snipped>
- Banning users due to their professed beliefs or
associations
...
However, the second is also beyond question -- in the negative. There is no way to reconcile such banning of contributors by POV with Wikipedia's mission and culture. How would we be able to claim NPOV when certain groups are not allowed to participate?.
In general, I agree. For most people, in most groups, this would be true. Yet some people are members of groups whose goal is that which you described in issue 1 - part of their goal is to make such threats! If someone is a member of an organization whose very goal is to make threats - and eventually carry them out - then (in these cases) wouldn't we be obligated to ban such users?
How can we say that it is wrong to make threats, let alone harm people - but then allow Wikipedia to be used as a forum to help strengthen Nazis and other groups who do make threats as policy, and who do carry out violent acts?
There is no God-given right to use a Wiki or work on an encyclopedia. We have a rather open-minded editorial policy, and it does not constitute censorship. Thus, we should not allow "contributors" whose admitted endgoal is to intimidate, or to incite violence. If we scare away the blacks, the Jews, the gays and the Catholics by opening up this encyclopedia to violent hate groups, then what are we left with? We will end up limiting the free speech of the many other people who will certainly be driven away, and we will be damaging our own reputation for n#o good reason.
I would argue that it is quite sufficient to do what we normally do -- examine the conduct of each individual editor, his actual edits, and react accordingly. Guilt by association makes me very uneasy. I believe it's quite unwise -- and unnecessary -- to interpret the wider goals of a group with which an editor affiliates, and block them preemptively.
Clearly, we know from experience that people with extreme views are much more likely to be badly-behaved and ignore policy than others (particularly when the groups they associate with calls for POV-pushing at Wikipedia). So is there any reason to bother with these people? Yes. To build an NPOV encyclopedia, it is helpful to attract contributors from a wide variety of viewpoints -- the diversity is healthy and helps us maintain neutrality. I posit that Wikipedia would be better off with a well-behaved, NPOV-writing Neo-Nazi than without; could such an individual exist?
-- Matt
[[User:Matt Crypto]]
___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Matt R wrote
I would argue that it is quite sufficient to do what we normally do --
examine
the conduct of each individual editor, his actual edits, and react
accordingly.
Guilt by association makes me very uneasy.
Certainly editors should be judged by what they do, not what they are - as a general rule. Most such general statements do get shot down.
I posit that Wikipedia would be better off with a well-behaved, NPOV-writing Neo-Nazi than
without;
could such an individual exist?
The question is really more like: suppose an editor had far-right views and that the _only way_ that was apparent was a small annoucement on his (male is more usual) user page. Something like 'I belong to [[X]]', where X is an organisation documented in an article that included, uncontested, the usual dreary hate items.
Well, this is a hypothetical. We would more likely get someone saying they were a member of, for example, an anti-immigration lobbying organisation in a country where immigration is a political issue. In this latter case there is fairly clearly a case that we have to go by behaviour, even though statements like, say, 'I vote Le Pen' in the French context, can cause very grave offence.
Charles
helpful to attract contributors from a wide variety of viewpoints -- the diversity is healthy and helps us maintain neutrality. I posit that Wikipedia would be better off with a well-behaved, NPOV-writing Neo-Nazi than without; could such an individual exist?
The hardest thing with Wikipedia is to realize that two editors with diametrically opposite views both still are humans, and still can be reasonable people. Denying that your opponent is also human is a grave error and leads to lots of bad things happening in the world.
For an example of a well-behaved, NPOV-writing nazi (albeit a convert) see Spandau: The Secret Diaries by Albert Speer.
From: Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk
I posit that Wikipedia would be better off with a well-behaved, NPOV-writing Neo-Nazi than without; could such an individual exist?
I agree with this in theory; I've just never met one who fit the criteria.
Jay.