Either I misunderstand the purpose of the list-serve, or I misunderstand Chris Mahan. I thought the purpose of the listserve. I thought one of the purposes was to promote open dialogue about policy. I assume that dialogue involves sharing and discussing values, principles, and methods from different points of view. I took it for granted that any posting to the listserve reflects the author's point of view, and I assumed that it was not only alright but valuable that I present my own point of view. This is what I was doing when I wrote:
I just don't want to see someone use Wikipedia as a vehicle for hate speech.
So frankly, I do not understand Chris Mahan's response:
Your POV.
Of course it is my point of view. From context, CM seems to be suggesting that it is not valid because it is my point of view. Why not? I don't get it.
Earlier, CM or someone else suggested that freedom of speech should be one of my values. In order to explain why banning anti-Semitism from Wikipedia would not infringe on freedom of speech, I wrote,
--- "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
What WHEELER wrote may very well be legal -- so he can write it elsewhere.
and CM responded,
Why not here? We're a public forum.
But then CM wrote
If they're being destructive, then ban them.
which is exactly my point. Hate speech is destructive. Does this now mean that CM agrees with me?
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 5/22/2004
--- "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
Either I misunderstand the purpose of the list-serve, or I misunderstand Chris Mahan. I thought the purpose of the listserve. I thought one of the purposes was to promote open dialogue about policy. I assume that dialogue involves sharing and discussing values, principles, and methods from different points of view. I took it for granted that any posting to the listserve reflects the author's point of view, and I assumed that it was not only alright but valuable that I present my own point of view.
Yes, and this is exactly why it's ok for Wheeler to express him/herself in this forum in the manner of his choosing.
This is what I was doing when I wrote:
I just don't want to see someone use Wikipedia as a vehicle for hate speech.
So frankly, I do not understand Chris Mahan's response:
Your POV.
Of course it is my point of view. From context, CM seems to be suggesting that it is not valid because it is my point of view. Why not? I don't get it.
It's perfectly valid "as your point of view" but not as "wikipedia Policy".
Earlier, CM or someone else suggested that freedom of speech should be one of my values. In order to explain why banning anti-Semitism from Wikipedia would not infringe on freedom of speech, I wrote,
--- "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
What WHEELER wrote may very well be legal -- so he can write it elsewhere.
and CM responded,
Why not here? We're a public forum.
But then CM wrote
If they're being destructive, then ban them.
I did not mean "being destructive" by hurting other people's feelings and motivation. I meant it as deleting content or damaging content in wikipedia articles.
which is exactly my point. Hate speech is destructive. Does this now mean that CM agrees with me?
I do not think that hate speech is destructive.
I'd rather have someone spew filth out of their mouth in the public forum (the street, etc) than shoot me and my wife with a pistol.
The reason why I say that hate speech is not destructive is that speech itself is strictly communicative. When one takes action, then the actions become punishable. but as long as one just speaks and DOES NOT ACT, then where's the harm?
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
If it is not Wikipedia policy it ought to be. Not sure which page we need to address this on, but there needs to be policy on this matter.
Fred
From: Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 15:57:22 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WHEELER's anti-Semitism
It's perfectly valid "as your point of view" but not as "wikipedia Policy".
Christopher Mahan wrote:
Yes, and this is exactly why it's ok for Wheeler to express him/herself in this forum in the manner of his choosing.
It's not okay.
I did not mean "being destructive" by hurting other people's feelings and motivation. I meant it as deleting content or damaging content in wikipedia articles.
Hurting other people's feelings _is_ destructive. Its contributors are the most valuable part of Wikipedia, and hurting them is damaging to Wikipedia itself.
The reason why I say that hate speech is not destructive is that speech itself is strictly communicative.
I disagree. Speech can be used as a weapon, and in extreme cases even to kill someone. And a person saying things like, to use a drastic example, "in hitler's times you would have been sent to the gas chambers" should be banned in Wikipedia.
This mailing list has a long history of wrong accusations of anti-semitism, but that's no reason not to react on real ones.
elian
Elisabeth Bauer wrote:
I disagree. Speech can be used as a weapon, and in extreme cases even to kill someone.
Please explain to me how speech can kill someone. For extra credit, explain how words on a Web page can do any physical harm.
The words, "Charge!" have worked historically. "Fire!" works well too. The codes necessary to activate and fire a nuclear missile would better be described as data. To address the matter at hand, hate speech is the social equivalent of the crime "inciting to riot". If people believe such things as the fabrications in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (in general circulation in some Arab countries) they can be expected to take action.
Fred
From: Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org Organization: Boskonia Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 19:39:23 -0500 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: WHEELER's anti-Semitism
Please explain to me how speech can kill someone.
It has correctly be pointed out that Wikipedia has no policy which would authorize a ban for a use of hate speech. The closest policy is at [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]. If you wish to refine this policy to include hate speech of the sort Wheeler engaged in please join the discussion regarding hate speech at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
The words, "Charge!" have worked historically. "Fire!" works well too. The codes necessary to activate and fire a nuclear missile would better be described as data. To address the matter at hand, hate speech is the social equivalent of the crime "inciting to riot". If people believe such things as the fabrications in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (in general circulation in some Arab countries) they can be expected to take action.
Close, but no cigar.
"Charge" doesn't kill people, pointy objects held by charging people -- who have free will and are therefore responsibile agents -- kill people.
"Fire" doesn't kill people, boots of panicky people -- who have free will and are therefore responsibile agents -- kill people.
"The Protocols of Zion" don't kill people, imbeciles who were looking for a target anyway -- who have free will and are therefore responsibile agents -- kill people.
I have yet to encounter a sound or a spot of ink on a page that could cause a human heart to stop beating. Every counter-example that has ever been presented to me has involved the intermediation of a responsible agent. In short, words don't kill people, people kill people. And in my arrogant opinion, blaming a word for a person's action is cowardly.
Yet suppressing the words works and people die in bed instead of at hard labor or as the result of gunshot. Mobs have to be whipped up. Even cold-blooded killers need a systematic and authoritative guide to action.
Fred
From: Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org Organization: Boskonia Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 07:58:26 -0500 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: WHEELER's anti-Semitism
in my arrogant opinion, blaming a word for a person's action is cowardly.
Fred Bauder wrote:
Yet suppressing the words works...
...said every tyrant thoughout history.
It's interesting that there is, on this list, at least, a lot of doubt. But in Rwanda, clearly, the mob was being egged on. And, of course, Hitler was the master at it.
Fred
From: "Charles Matthews" charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 17:39:07 +0100 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Mass murder results from exhortation
Even cold-blooded killers need a systematic and authoritative guide to action.
Fred
Yes, see Rwanda if there is any doubt.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 07/04/04 17:04, Fred Bauder wrote:
It's interesting that there is, on this list, at least, a lot of doubt. But in Rwanda, clearly, the mob was being egged on. And, of course, Hitler was the master at it.
To attempt Godwin's Law in reverse: does this proposed "hate speech" policy involve an alteration of the Wikipedia NPOV policy to any degree? Particularly on this issue.
I ask because, to steal a coinage from RK, a usable 'nazipedia' would actually be a very good thing. I've been working at length on [[Category:Neo-Nazi topics]] for this reason: dealing with these people requires as much active knowledge as is available.
Yet I already see people on VfD advocating deletion of articles on small neo-Nazi groups *on the basis that* talking about them is advertising them. Without their NPOV detectors being set off at all.
(Note that in practical Internet interaction, neo-Nazis are consistently really, really crap at sensible argument. Amazingly so. There are plenty of lucid Communists, but exploding neo-Nazi heads online is easy.)
I submit that this anti-"hate speech" policy proposal will become self-broadening and threaten NPOV.
- d.
NPOV never covered false statements such as Wheeler made about the Jewish concentration camps of the Gulag. If you think it did you were mistaken. Such a statement would be acceptable only in the context of identifying it as an anti-semitic statement.
Fred
From: David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 18:39:09 +0000 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Mass murder results from exhortation
To attempt Godwin's Law in reverse: does this proposed "hate speech" policy involve an alteration of the Wikipedia NPOV policy to any degree? Particularly on this issue.
On 07/04/04 19:03, Fred Bauder wrote:
To attempt Godwin's Law in reverse: does this proposed "hate speech" policy involve an alteration of the Wikipedia NPOV policy to any degree? Particularly on this issue.
NPOV never covered false statements such as Wheeler made about the Jewish concentration camps of the Gulag. If you think it did you were mistaken. Such a statement would be acceptable only in the context of identifying it as an anti-semitic statement.
I wouldn't have thought so. I'd like to hear RK's opinion on the topic in general before feeling my qualms are addressed. He already considers page protection evidence of anti-Semitism.
- d.
Most of use are aware of RK's overreaction to various matters. His idiosyncratic behavior gives no one else license to engage in anti-semitism. He can be predicted to go overboard on this too, but that should not stand in the way of a sound, conservative policy which sanctions hate speech.
Fred
From: David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 20:14:51 +0000 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Mass murder results from exhortation
I wouldn't have thought so. I'd like to hear RK's opinion on the topic in general before feeling my qualms are addressed. He already considers page protection evidence of anti-Semitism.
On 07/04/04 19:41, Fred Bauder wrote:
Most of use are aware of RK's overreaction to various matters. His idiosyncratic behavior gives no one else license to engage in anti-semitism. He can be predicted to go overboard on this too, but that should not stand in the way of a sound, conservative policy which sanctions hate speech.
I still feel there's a truck-sized hole in your proposed definition. And remember that the examples I gave of people wanting to delete articles on neo-Nazi groups based on POV are actually happening now. This stuff leaks all over the place.
- d.
Fred Bauder wrote:
Most of use are aware of RK's overreaction to various matters. His idiosyncratic behavior gives no one else license to engage in anti-semitism. He can be predicted to go overboard on this too, but that should not stand in the way of a sound, conservative policy which sanctions hate speech.
"Sanction" is a poorly chosen word because it has two contradictory menings: "A threatened penalty" or "an official permission".
Ec
I'd rather have someone spew filth out of their mouth in the public forum (the street, etc) than shoot me and my wife with a pistol.
How about having neither happen?
The reason why I say that hate speech is not destructive is that speech itself is strictly communicative. When one takes action, then the actions become punishable. but as long as one just speaks and DOES NOT ACT, then where's the harm?
There is _psychological_ harm.
And it not only hurts individuals, it directly affects the community's functioning. Hate speech, as you say, communicates hate. People who feel hated experience distress, which reduces their productivity. In particular, it makes cooperation much harder. And our goal is to COLLABORATIVELY write an encyclopedia. Hate speech is therefore directly counter-productive.
-- Fredrik
--- Fredrik Johansson fred@frad.org wrote:
There is _psychological_ harm.
And it not only hurts individuals, it directly affects the community's functioning. Hate speech, as you say, communicates hate. People who feel hated experience distress, which reduces their productivity. In particular, it makes cooperation much harder. And our goal is to COLLABORATIVELY write an encyclopedia. Hate speech is therefore directly counter-productive.
there is a sayng in texas which I find appropriate: If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On 07/05/04 21:31, Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- Fredrik Johansson fred@frad.org wrote:
There is _psychological_ harm. And it not only hurts individuals, it directly affects the community's functioning. Hate speech, as you say, communicates hate. People who feel hated experience distress, which reduces their productivity. In particular, it makes cooperation much harder. And our goal is to COLLABORATIVELY write an encyclopedia. Hate speech is therefore directly counter-productive.
there is a sayng in texas which I find appropriate: If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Any sufficiently rabid partisan will consider the edits of their opponents to be close enough to hate speech to treat as such.
That's why this discussion of 'hate speech' needs an INCREDIBLY FIRM DEFINITION that does NOT sum up to "I know it when I see it."
- d.