The etiquette lessons are a good idea. For starters, if RKs coming back, there ought to be a gentlemens agreement that the Nazi comparisons be tossed aside. This pertains to RK in particular.
It is entirely ridiculous for either side to equate the other to Nazism.
Nazism was a product of the contradictions of German society, within the context of Germanys political culture, German traditions, the peculiarities of the various actors, and the capacity of Germanys material development. It was not the product of a mutual, mass-based conflict between Jews and gentiles in Germany, whereas the Israeli-Palestinian matter is an us versus them conflict, which escalated in such a way that bred hatred. If one were provide similes, the suicide bombings and targeted assassinations would be analogous to a couple of old, bitter enemies finally having enough, and lashing out violently against each other. The final solution, on the other hand, would be analogous to a serial killer, such as John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, or Jeffrey Dahmer, acting out his frustrations and arbitrarily picking out certain types of people in a killing spree.
At this point, we can still set some informal agreements to avoid having peoples feelings hurt. We could firmly set limits on the more outlandish hyperbole, such as the historically groundless use of the Nazi tag as a means of rhetoric.
Now, let me address the issue of mass-based conflicts (not the Holocaust which was no mutual conflict, but sheep being led to the slaughter house) played out on Wikipedia flame wars. In general, among the parties involved in an escalated conflict, the conceptions of reality (vis-à-vis the other party) start taking on ideas that have little basis in reality. Conflict is never primordial, but when they take on a mass-based element, and escalate ideologically to a certain level, easy settlements (e.g., carrot and stick, incorporation, concessions, separation, or coalition) become extremely difficult. Attrition, more conflict, or total defeat of one group, are the only realistic outcomes.
Thus, its no coincidence although other factors are certainly involved that the total wars of the past century coincided with the modern age of mass culture, nationalism, and mass society. While cleavages breeding mass hatreds certainly predate modern times, the capacity for mass hatred between peoples was certainly facilitated by advancements in communication and transportation, the rise of the nation-state, and new social contradictions. As an aside, Israels leaders were not skillful enough to handle the Palestinian matter before generations were born and reared in refugee camps.
For good or for ill, a free online medium like Wikipedia will inevitably become a form for anyone with internet access who has found the site to play out these strong tensions. And any attempts to avoid this, so long as we can stop anyone from SUCCESSFULLY using the site to promote an agenda, will be futile. Anyone can log in; and if we start banning people in droves, and developing committees to keep the RK-types and proxy wars out, then we no longer have a free encyclopedia. Furthermore, with Wikipedia more popular than Britannica, oversight committees and planning becomes impossible.
Let me use another analogy. Rationalized planning worked well in the Soviet Union until a point: achieving the fastest rate of industrial development ever, fastest rate of social mobility ever, and incredible advancements in living standards (between the period in which the Soviets started reaping the benefits of industrialization and the onset of stagnation in the 1970s), but it eventually exhausted its capacity. Eventually, it was the victim of its own success, creating complexity (e.g., technological development, an intricate division of labor, so much diversification, such a high degree of occupational specialization) that the planners couldnt handle. It worked when for the Soviets when they had a lot of peasants and a lot of hard-to-extract resources (not a humane combination ) in the beginning; and regulating things to avoid partisan flame wars on Wikipedia might work for us in the beginning. But this site is growing so fast that ability for all these conflicts to be managed by a tight community will be exhausted. Its time to accept that were going to have to deal with a more de-centralized approach. RKs rivals will do a better job managing him than committees, mailing lists, and developers.
_________________________________________________________________ Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your existing Internet access and enjoy patented spam protection and more. Sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/byoa
Hi all,
In recent weeks, I have contributed to several discussions on the Problem user page and I now have come to the conclusion that it is a thoroughly unsuitable mechanism for resolving issues between users. Whatever its original purpose was (dealing with vandalism I guess), it is now (also) used for airing complex grievances with other users about lack of neutrality, breaches of Wikiquette and so on. Repeatedly, I've seen heated, sometimes acrimonious discussions take place, cooler heads try to prevail, some kind of ad hoc truce settles, and *nothing is solved*. Last night, a veteran sysop announced he was "arbitrarily" removing a discussion involving a user who repeatedly got involved in edit-wars over ever-contentious Mother Teresa. I disagreed with this action, but at the same time, I also realized that leaving the discussion on the page likewise served no purpose at all. Hence, I have come to the conclusion that participating in discussions on that page is a complete waste of time and have removed it from my Watchlist. For the time being, if I have a problem with another user, I will leave a note on the talk page of someone I trust and ask them to help out.
The fact remains: Wikipedia has evolved reasonably effective mechanisms and procedures for dealing with vandalism, but it is sorely lacking in a process for resolving serious problems between "real" users regarding things like neutrality and Wikiquette. I realize that this will be difficult and take much time to establish. As a first step, I would argue for immediately banishing the unhealthy spirit of Problem users by renaming it New arrivals or Temporary disturbances or something and dedicating it exclusively to dealing with vandalism and mischief. Then, we *urgently* need to establish some kind of procedure where mediation or arbitration can be arranged to deal with substantial conflicts, in a similar way to which Brian is now trying to settle the conflicts surrounding the "2003 Guajarat violence" article.
I realize that this issue of conflict resolution has been discussed here earlier, but I didn't read every message in the thread and I don't know what it led to.
V.
viajero@quilombo.nl wrote:
Hi all,
In recent weeks, I have contributed to several discussions on the Problem user page and I now have come to the conclusion that it is a thoroughly unsuitable mechanism for resolving issues between users. Whatever its original purpose was (dealing with vandalism I guess), it is now (also) used for airing complex grievances with other users about lack of neutrality, breaches of Wikiquette and so on.
...(Much snipped)
Such a page should never be anything more than an index or directory to the problems. Any one thing that gets there can easily generate such verbiage that it overwhelms the page.
Ec