Slrubenstein asked me to post the following on his behalf. Everything below was written by him; I deleted some irrelevant parts.
---- I have been in an edit war with JTDIRL and 172 on the China page, and I think there is both a need for some intervention, and an intervention that is not based on any argument about China, but rather about Wikipedia conventions, especially NPOV and naming conventions. [...] And, as I said, I think what is most needed now is some explicit discussion of Wikipedia conventions.
To fully grasp the debate behind the edit war you would have to read a lot. Minimally, I would suggest reading the entire [[Talk: China (Archive 3)]] and [[Talk: China]] pages (which I know is a lot to ask of someone who may not be so interested. As a party to the dispute and biased, I don't want to misrepresent it, but I will try to sum it up.
The question is, how to identify the Chinese (specifically, PRC) state. The article identified the state as communist. I checked the Chinese Constitution which states that it is a socialist state; an official Chinese website states that it is not a communist state. JTDIRL and 172 responded that all political scientists identify China as a communist state and that we should go by what Western scholars do. I talked to a few colleagues of mine -- a sociologist, two anthropologitsts, and a political scientist. They told me that many political scientists used to label China a communist state but that they are moving away from that designation, considering it inaccurate and meaningless; that many political scientists and most other scholars identify China as a socialist state, although some qualify it as "late" or "post" socialist. Now JTDIRL claims that it doesn't matter what political scientists say, that what ought to be presented is a "formal encyclop�dic definition."
Now, I never heard of this phrase and doubt that it should be the basis of our deciding how to identify any state, as what we are trying to do is, arguably, devise a formal encyclopedic definition. I think he means we should call it a communist state because other encyclopedias do. I still think we ought to call it something that reflects the current state of scholarship.
But I hope you can see why I think this is a matter of clarifying general wikipedia conventions or norms, and not just a debate over China. [...]
I am ''not'' asking anyone to say "SLR is right and JTDIRL is wrong." I am asking the community, such as it is, to discuss the conventions and clarify them as they may apply to the case.
(written by Slrubenstein) -----
Axel
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com
Axel Boldt wrote:
The question is, how to identify the Chinese (specifically, PRC) state. The article identified the state as communist. I checked the Chinese Constitution which states that it is a socialist state; an official Chinese website states that it is not a communist state. JTDIRL and 172 responded that all political scientists identify China as a communist state and that we should go by what Western scholars do. I talked to a few colleagues of mine -- a sociologist, two anthropologitsts, and a political scientist. They told me that many political scientists used to label China a communist state but that they are moving away from that designation, considering it inaccurate and meaningless; that many political scientists and most other scholars identify China as a socialist state, although some qualify it as "late" or "post" socialist. Now JTDIRL claims that it doesn't matter what political scientists say, that what ought to be presented is a "formal encyclopædic definition."
Well whose opinion is he going to take? The proverbial man on the street's? It's obviously unclear how to identify it. But we have the answer right here:
"China's whatsit state is somewhat unclear. Its constitution defines it as .....; however, ..... ; some qualify it as "post socialist", meaning that (explain the justification of the new term here)"
Regarding the policy issue, I wonder if our "standard techniques" for dealing with a controversy are perfectly adequate to deal with the issue. Ironically, the effort to clarify the issue for the mailing list may point the way to resolving the question on the page.
How about this:
China has been traditionally considered a communist state, although the Chinese Constitution states that China is a socialist state. Western scholars are moving away from the label "communist" and calling China "socialist", "[[late socialist]]", or "[[post socialist]]".
I'm not saying that this is a really *good* formulation; I'm sure it could be refined quite easily. But it eliminates a controversy by stating the controversy. All parties can agree to it.
--Jimbo
p.s. Regarding the content issue, it is my understanding that China is nowadays a confused and somewhat internally contradictory place. Shanghai in particular is often cited as being relatively capitalist, even! I don't really know anything about that other than what I read in the newspapers and magazines, though.
I think the fundamental problem is that several parties to this controversy essentially want an article written from a sympathetic point of view. I suggest that they should have that freedom on Wikipedia with critical views in a seperate article perhaps entitled, China: A crititical view.
I stirred up this hornet's nest by inserting a link to [[authoritarianism and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first paragraph of the article. I think this is a fair characterization of the regime (regardless of what ever other adjective might describe it). The problem are not limited to this particular question but extend to deletion of mention of the democracy movement and of Tiananmen protests.
Fred
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 04:51:11 -0700 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
Regarding the policy issue, I wonder if our "standard techniques" for dealing with a controversy are perfectly adequate to deal with the issue. Ironically, the effort to clarify the issue for the mailing list may point the way to resolving the question on the page.
How about this:
China has been traditionally considered a communist state, although the Chinese Constitution states that China is a socialist state. Western scholars are moving away from the label "communist" and calling China "socialist", "[[late socialist]]", or "[[post socialist]]".
I'm not saying that this is a really *good* formulation; I'm sure it could be refined quite easily. But it eliminates a controversy by stating the controversy. All parties can agree to it.
--Jimbo
p.s. Regarding the content issue, it is my understanding that China is nowadays a confused and somewhat internally contradictory place. Shanghai in particular is often cited as being relatively capitalist, even! I don't really know anything about that other than what I read in the newspapers and magazines, though.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
I think the fundamental problem is that several parties to this controversy essentially want an article written from a sympathetic point of view. I suggest that they should have that freedom on Wikipedia with critical views in a seperate article perhaps entitled, China: A crititical view.
I think this is a very bad idea _for wikipedia_. I think the idea of a website with critical essays written in wiki-fashion is an interesting one, but it isn't right for us.
The problem are not limited to this particular question but extend to deletion of mention of the democracy movement and of Tiananmen protests.
Who deleted those things? I would say that no article on China could be NPOV without discussing those things.
--Jimbo
I'll look this up later, rl busy, not ignoring the question.
Fred
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 05:22:53 -0700 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
Fred Bauder wrote:
I think the fundamental problem is that several parties to this controversy essentially want an article written from a sympathetic point of view. I suggest that they should have that freedom on Wikipedia with critical views in a seperate article perhaps entitled, China: A crititical view.
I think this is a very bad idea _for wikipedia_. I think the idea of a website with critical essays written in wiki-fashion is an interesting one, but it isn't right for us.
The problem are not limited to this particular question but extend to deletion of mention of the democracy movement and of Tiananmen protests.
Who deleted those things? I would say that no article on China could be NPOV without discussing those things.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think it would be good for wikipedia if we adopted the six color hat system. A critical/pessimistic view is black hat, and there are other hats for emotional/gut feeling, creative, optomistic, but I forget the rest. The article could be entitled China/black hat or China (black hat). This flies in the face of NPOV, but if we explicitly explained that this was from a critical point of view, it could work. Encyclopedias tend to be very POV. My school World Book encyclopedia is highly McCarthyist and Eurocentric.
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
I think the fundamental problem is that several
parties to this
controversy essentially want an article written
from a sympathetic
point of view. I suggest that they should have
that freedom on
Wikipedia with critical views in a seperate
article perhaps
entitled, China: A crititical view.
I think this is a very bad idea _for wikipedia_. I think the idea of a website with critical essays written in wiki-fashion is an interesting one, but it isn't right for us.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com
Could someone find a occupation for little fat budda please ?
He is very bored, and since I had the absolute stupid idea to dare oppose to him, he is on my back doing quite irrelevant edits.
He is making me badly loose my time, which is one thing, but he is also doing dozens of inappropriate links which imho are damaging Wikipedia, as they are very meaningless.
For example, he is redirecting biosphere III to biosphere, when these two things have nothing to do.
He is redirecting post-consumer waste, which is a very properly defined word in sustainable developement, to recycling, which is completely stupid.
He is deleting links under the reason they have nothing to do with the topic of the article, when if fact they do
He has deleted my article on "Impact of global climate change on agriculture" which took me hours to write, to redirect it to [[climate change]]
similarly, he deleted article on conservation (biology) to redirect it to [[biology]]
In short, he is currently deleting hours of work, and making totally destructible misdirection
I have no copy of what I wrote, and wikipedia is so slow I will never be able to save what I have been doing for more than a year
I ask that he be stopped immediately
If I am not welcome on wikipedia, I will just leave it if necessary, but please, let me save my work, more than a year of work before it deletes everything
please please please....
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com
ant--know that I'm on your side.
BTW, have you been made a sysop yet?
--- The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com wrote:
ant--know that I'm on your side.
BTW, have you been made a sysop yet?
I found the stupid hidden misdirection budda made fortunately. I think nothing is lost, I just lost my temper I guess. But I know I can lose everything, so I will temporarely save them in meta, before securing them somewhere else.
Which leave all the *very* unprofessional redirections budda made, and which have to be fixed one by one. These redirections are impairing the quality of the encyclopedia. Better an empty link that to make believe to someone the concept of post-consumer waste is similar to the concept of recycling.
What sense does it have to delete gaia theories to redirect them to gaia hypothesis ????
or to redirect sustainable agriculture to just agriculture ???
who are we trying to convince here ???
If noone is disturbed by leaving someone ruining the quality of an encyclopedia that way, I think there is nothing else to say, and no point in doing anything
But for a professional in the agriculture field or waste treatment field, these edits and redirection are insulting, and very very very very much lowering any interest in wikipedia
I am going to spent hours repairing all that mess, probably to find every thing ruined tomorrow again. At this point, I 'll give up unless someone help me
I don't really want to be sysop. I already have the french wiki as a area to keep clean. Besides, being a sysop on this issue will change nothing. I have no possibility to stop somebody destroying the whole sector of agriculture in this encyclopedia. Being a sysop would not change this.
but thanks to your support tc
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com
Disagreements are not vandalism. You are being to sound too much like Lir and his cast of thousands. Zoe
Anthere anthere6@yahoo.com wrote: --- The Cunctator wrote:
ant--know that I'm on your side.
BTW, have you been made a sysop yet?
I found the stupid hidden misdirection budda made fortunately. I think nothing is lost, I just lost my temper I guess. But I know I can lose everything, so I will temporarely save them in meta, before securing them somewhere else.
Which leave all the *very* unprofessional redirections budda made, and which have to be fixed one by one. These redirections are impairing the quality of the encyclopedia. Better an empty link that to make believe to someone the concept of post-consumer waste is similar to the concept of recycling.
What sense does it have to delete gaia theories to redirect them to gaia hypothesis ????
or to redirect sustainable agriculture to just agriculture ???
who are we trying to convince here ???
If noone is disturbed by leaving someone ruining the quality of an encyclopedia that way, I think there is nothing else to say, and no point in doing anything
But for a professional in the agriculture field or waste treatment field, these edits and redirection are insulting, and very very very very much lowering any interest in wikipedia
I am going to spent hours repairing all that mess, probably to find every thing ruined tomorrow again. At this point, I 'll give up unless someone help me
I don't really want to be sysop. I already have the french wiki as a area to keep clean. Besides, being a sysop on this issue will change nothing. I have no possibility to stop somebody destroying the whole sector of agriculture in this encyclopedia. Being a sysop would not change this.
but thanks to your support tc
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
Can I ban BigFatBuddha? I've never tried to ban someone, do I need to be a developer? Developers seem to be the people that usually ban people, but I thought it could be any sysop.
--- Anthere anthere6@yahoo.com wrote:
I found the stupid hidden misdirection budda made fortunately. I think nothing is lost, I just lost my temper I guess. But I know I can lose everything, so I will temporarely save them in meta, before securing them somewhere else.
Which leave all the *very* unprofessional redirections budda made, and which have to be fixed one by one. These redirections are impairing the quality of the encyclopedia. Better an empty link that to make believe to someone the concept of post-consumer waste is similar to the concept of recycling.
What sense does it have to delete gaia theories to redirect them to gaia hypothesis ????
or to redirect sustainable agriculture to just agriculture ???
who are we trying to convince here ???
If noone is disturbed by leaving someone ruining the quality of an encyclopedia that way, I think there is nothing else to say, and no point in doing anything
But for a professional in the agriculture field or waste treatment field, these edits and redirection are insulting, and very very very very much lowering any interest in wikipedia
I am going to spent hours repairing all that mess, probably to find every thing ruined tomorrow again. At this point, I 'll give up unless someone help me
I don't really want to be sysop. I already have the french wiki as a area to keep clean. Besides, being a sysop on this issue will change nothing. I have no possibility to stop somebody destroying the whole sector of agriculture in this encyclopedia. Being a sysop would not change this.
but thanks to your support tc
Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Can I ban BigFatBuddha? I've never tried to ban someone, do I need to be a developer? Developers seem to be the people that usually ban people, but I thought it could be any sysop.
Don't even think about it. Logged in contributors can only be banned by decree from Jimbo Wales.
Regards,
Erik
What if he's not logged in? And what is your opinion about banning him? Should Jimbo ban him?
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Can I ban BigFatBuddha? I've never tried to ban someone, do I need to be a developer? Developers
seem
to be the people that usually ban people, but I thought it could be any sysop.
Don't even think about it. Logged in contributors can only be banned by decree from Jimbo Wales.
Regards,
Erik _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
What if he's not logged in? And what is your opinion about banning him? Should Jimbo ban him?
If he's not logged in, a sysop can ban his IP for vandalism or other egregious Wikipedia rule violations (Wikiquette, NPOV).
I don't really see his contributions in those categories. If I'm skeptical, Jimbo will be doubly so -- in 2 years of Wikipedia, we have only really banned a handful of logged in contributors. Lir, Clutch, 24, Helga Jonat. With all the Lir pseudonyms it may look like more though :)
If you want to make a case for banning the buddha, better start collecting evidence of - violations of NPOV -- "the French stink" - violations of Wikiquette -- "you stink"
Collect these in a file, preferably with the URLs to the specific diffs, and send that to Jimbo. He'll probably get back to you a couple of months later and ask for more data ;-)
Regards,
Erik
On Sat, 2003-04-26 at 19:19, Erik Moeller wrote:
What if he's not logged in? And what is your opinion about banning him? Should Jimbo ban him?
If he's not logged in, a sysop can ban his IP for vandalism or other egregious Wikipedia rule violations (Wikiquette, NPOV).
I don't really see his contributions in those categories. If I'm skeptical, Jimbo will be doubly so -- in 2 years of Wikipedia, we have only really banned a handful of logged in contributors. Lir, Clutch, 24, Helga Jonat. With all the Lir pseudonyms it may look like more though :)
I really don't think BFB should be banned. He's obstreperous and an aggressive editor, but I don't think he's malicious. I could be wrong about the maliciousness, but still, we need to get away from the idea we can ban away all our problems rather than working to fix them.
The Cunctator wrote:
I really don't think BFB should be banned. He's obstreperous and an aggressive editor, but I don't think he's malicious. I could be wrong about the maliciousness, but still, we need to get away from the idea we can ban away all our problems rather than working to fix them.
I reverted some of his redirects which ANthere wasn't happy with, and wrote quick stubs. He helped me with those, saying he had nothing against a stub for that article. I think he was trying to make "ghost links" go to something that was in the same subject area -- Anthere disagreed (and so do I).
I find his habit of signing in funny squiggles VERY irritating, and it certainly adds weight to the recent request to disable the nickname-signing feature. (I've been tempted to apply CommunityPressure and just go round changing his signature to his real username)
--- tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
I really don't think BFB should be banned. He's
obstreperous and an
aggressive editor, but I don't think he's
malicious. I could be wrong
about the maliciousness, but still, we need to get
away from the idea we
can ban away all our problems rather than working
to fix them.
I reverted some of his redirects which ANthere wasn't happy with, and wrote quick stubs. He helped me with those, saying he had nothing against a stub for that article. I think he was trying to make "ghost links" go to something that was in the same subject area -- Anthere disagreed (and so do I).
I must state here that Fat Budda has been making many stubs to replace the redirects, which I deeply appreciate.
I find his habit of signing in funny squiggles VERY irritating, and it certainly adds weight to the recent request to disable the nickname-signing feature. (I've been tempted to apply CommunityPressure and just go round changing his signature to his real username)
Agree. His sig only appears to me as squares. This is a bit disturbing, in particular since one or two other users also choose that type of approach, and appear to me with squares in their sig as well.
Imho, names were initially an attempt to disimbiguate people, to improve communication. When names appear the same (as squares), they are no more names.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
I must state here that Fat Budda has been making many stubs to replace the redirects, which I deeply appreciate.
Some of his stubs should be redirects. On the page [[Primate extinction]] (or something like that) he wrote "[[Extinction]] of [[primate]]s". I quickly replaced it with a redirect to [[Ape extinction]] because primate extinction almost always reffers to the other primates dying out, not us. (There was a recent article in Nature about how gorillas are almost extinct an should be classified as very endangered instead of just endangered, I think that article used the two terms interchangibly).
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
What did I miss? What did Buddah do to even have us contemplate banning him? Zoe
Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:What if he's not logged in? And what is your opinion about banning him? Should Jimbo ban him?
--- Erik Moeller wrote:
Can I ban BigFatBuddha? I've never tried to ban someone, do I need to be a developer? Developers
seem
to be the people that usually ban people, but I thought it could be any sysop.
Don't even think about it. Logged in contributors can only be banned by decree from Jimbo Wales.
Regards,
Erik _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
Erik Moeller wrote:
Don't even think about it. Logged in contributors can only be banned by decree from Jimbo Wales.
There is one exception to this: "pure" vandalism from a logged in contributor when I can't be found in a timely fashion. It's a little (a lot?) fuzzy as to what is "pure" vandalism, but it's pretty safe to say that if you have to ask, it isn't.
Examples of pure vandalism would be logging in and writing curse words in articles, posting pornographic pictures, randomly deleting content, randomly changing content to have simple wrong facts.
"George shit Washington was born last Thursday, and here's a naked picture of him I found on goatse."
That sort of thing.
But if it's just a content fight, then a ban is a serious last resort after much annoying and tiresome conversation. :-)
--Jimbo
He has deleted my article on "Impact of global climate change on agriculture" which took me hours to write, to redirect it to [[climate change]]
What do you mean, deleted? I'm not sure I understand. The article has no history except for BigFatBuddha's edit, and it is not in the archive of deleted pages. I also don't remember BigFatBuddha being made a sysop -- he's not listed on Wikipedia:Administrators. If he is a sysop, and has bypassed the Votes for deletion page, his sysop status should be revoked immediately.
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
He has deleted my article on "Impact of global
climate
change on agriculture" which took me hours to
write,
to redirect it to [[climate change]]
What do you mean, deleted? I'm not sure I understand. The article has no history except for BigFatBuddha's edit, and it is not in the archive of deleted pages. I also don't remember BigFatBuddha being made a sysop -- he's not listed on Wikipedia:Administrators. If he is a sysop, and has bypassed the Votes for deletion page, his sysop status should be revoked immediately.
Regards,
Erik
it was a mistake from me. Someone probably moved it somewhere else, for I found it under another article. I can't begin to figure why the change of redirection is not referenced in the history of the initial page. My mistake and apologies
Which changes nothing to the fact he did maybe 50 redirections to fix, and a couple of articles blanking and redirection to others articles, ruining several people careful contributions, and totally messing with delicate nuances. I havenot checked all yet. Wiki is too slow.
I stay with the conviction this is vandalism
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 12:59:38PM -0700, Anthere wrote:
He has deleted my article on "Impact of global climate change on agriculture" which took me hours to write, to redirect it to [[climate change]]
Hello Anthere,
Looking at that pages history, I only see one version of the article, which is created by Budda. Since he is no Admin, I wonder how he could have deleted your article. Are you sure you saved it?
Regards,
JeLuF
--- Jens Frank JeLuF@gmx.de wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 12:59:38PM -0700, Anthere wrote:
He has deleted my article on "Impact of global
climate
change on agriculture" which took me hours to
write,
to redirect it to [[climate change]]
Hello Anthere,
Looking at that pages history, I only see one version of the article, which is created by Budda. Since he is no Admin, I wonder how he could have deleted your article. Are you sure you saved it?
Regards,
JeLuF
I found it at [[Global warming and agriculture]] (which is a good title) moved by Martin
Budda probably picked up a wrong writing of "Impact of global climate change on agriculture" (there was probably a s initially - ok that was not a good title)
Budda redirect it to [[climate change]] (which is clearly another topic, though related), without of course taking the trouble to check whether there was not an article on the topic
Similarly, he redirected [[intensive agriculture]] to [[agriculture]], in spite of the existence of an [[intensive farming]] article.
He run through a [[List of sustainable agriculture topics]] which I create some days ago, as well as through some of my last articles, picked up every empty link (there were obviously a lot on the list, since it was precisely the object of setting up the list), and did stupid redirections.
That is a pure personnal attack
I am glad he is not sysop
Should he ask, I ask that he is not done. Please
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com
Anthere--
I think you should try not to take it personally. I suspect what may be going on is the BFB is editing aggressively, not maliciously. He goes in and edits what other people have been working on, I suspect, mainly because it's what's on the Recent Changes pages. Because he makes so many, such aggressive edits, it can be very frustrating.
The real question is whether a discussion, say, on his talk page, can allow everyone to come to some sort of understanding.
He does have a nasty predilection for deleting content as he makes these very strong edits.
But I suspect (hope) he's not trying to attack you. What I don't know is whether he cares at all that he's effectively attacked you. I hope he would care, if it's brought to his attention.
--tc
I really disagree with this assessment, but since I appear to be nothing but a vandal and a useless appendage to Wikipedia, what do I know? Zoe
Anthere anthere6@yahoo.com wrote:Could someone find a occupation for little fat budda please ?
He is very bored, and since I had the absolute stupid idea to dare oppose to him, he is on my back doing quite irrelevant edits.
He is making me badly loose my time, which is one thing, but he is also doing dozens of inappropriate links which imho are damaging Wikipedia, as they are very meaningless.
For example, he is redirecting biosphere III to biosphere, when these two things have nothing to do.
He is redirecting post-consumer waste, which is a very properly defined word in sustainable developement, to recycling, which is completely stupid.
He is deleting links under the reason they have nothing to do with the topic of the article, when if fact they do
He has deleted my article on "Impact of global climate change on agriculture" which took me hours to write, to redirect it to [[climate change]]
similarly, he deleted article on conservation (biology) to redirect it to [[biology]]
In short, he is currently deleting hours of work, and making totally destructible misdirection
I have no copy of what I wrote, and wikipedia is so slow I will never be able to save what I have been doing for more than a year
I ask that he be stopped immediately
If I am not welcome on wikipedia, I will just leave it if necessary, but please, let me save my work, more than a year of work before it deletes everything
please please please....
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 05:22:53 -0700 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
Fred Bauder wrote:
I think the fundamental problem is that several parties to this controversy essentially want an article written from a sympathetic point of view. I suggest that they should have that freedom on Wikipedia with critical views in a seperate article perhaps entitled, China: A crititical view.
I think this is a very bad idea _for wikipedia_. I think the idea of a website with critical essays written in wiki-fashion is an interesting one, but it isn't right for us.
The problem are not limited to this particular question but extend to deletion of mention of the democracy movement and of Tiananmen protests.
Who deleted those things? I would say that no article on China could be NPOV without discussing those things.
172, not really a new problem in his case.
Fred
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian country" (I know that's not what you said) or even "China is a controlling country" because that's an opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian, we just want the best for our citizens", which makes the comment POV. You could say (in a later paragraph), "China is critisized for being [[authoritarianism and totalitarianism|authoritarianist]].
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I stirred up this hornet's nest by inserting a link to [[authoritarianism and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first paragraph of the article. I think this is a fair characterization of the regime (regardless of what ever other adjective might describe it).
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com
I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the opinion of vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met constitute an authoritarian government.
Fred
From: Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian country" (I know that's not what you said) or even "China is a controlling country" because that's an opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian, we just want the best for our citizens", which makes the comment POV. You could say (in a later paragraph), "China is critisized for being [[authoritarianism and totalitarianism|authoritarianist]].
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I stirred up this hornet's nest by inserting a link to [[authoritarianism and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first paragraph of the article. I think this is a fair characterization of the regime (regardless of what ever other adjective might describe it).
Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
At 05:16 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the opinion of vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met constitute an authoritarian government.
This concerns me, not because I disagree, but because I don't know what objective criteria Fred is using, and because almost anyone who promotes a point of view sincerely believes that he or she is speaking truth.
The determination to speak truth, while admirable, is not the same as NPOV, which is our policy.
Fred
From: Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian country" (I know that's not what you said) or even "China is a controlling country" because that's an opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian, we just want the best for our citizens", which makes the comment POV. You could say (in a later paragraph), "China is critisized for being [[authoritarianism and totalitarianism|authoritarianist]].
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I stirred up this hornet's nest by inserting a link to [[authoritarianism and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first paragraph of the article. I think this is a fair characterization of the regime (regardless of what ever other adjective might describe it).
The criteria are control of the press, repression of political speech, imprisonment of those who atempt to organize an opposing political party or a union, etc.
Fred
From: Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:31:58 -0400 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
At 05:16 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the opinion of vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met constitute an authoritarian government.
This concerns me, not because I disagree, but because I don't know what objective criteria Fred is using, and because almost anyone who promotes a point of view sincerely believes that he or she is speaking truth.
The determination to speak truth, while admirable, is not the same as NPOV, which is our policy.
Fred
From: Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian country" (I know that's not what you said) or even "China is a controlling country" because that's an opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian, we just want the best for our citizens", which makes the comment POV. You could say (in a later paragraph), "China is critisized for being [[authoritarianism and totalitarianism|authoritarianist]].
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I stirred up this hornet's nest by inserting a link to [[authoritarianism and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first paragraph of the article. I think this is a fair characterization of the regime (regardless of what ever other adjective might describe it).
-- Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org http://www.redbird.org
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
And the Catholic Church (for another example you used of an present-day authoritarian organization) does any of these things? I can (I have) written letters extremely critical of Cardinal Mahoney that were published -- without interference -- in the free press. Should I fear the Spanish Inquisition?
Methinks your definition of "authoritarian organization" is remarkably broad if it lumps the Catholic Church in with the Butchers of Beijing.
It makes me wonder how fluid your definition of "truth" is.
Fred Bauder wrote: | The criteria are control of the press, repression of political speech, | imprisonment of those who atempt to organize an opposing political party or | a union, etc. | | Fred | | |>From: Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org |>Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:31:58 -0400 |>To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? |> |>At 05:16 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote: |> |>>I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another |>>example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the opinion of |>>vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met constitute an |>>authoritarian government. |> |>This concerns me, not because I disagree, but because I don't know |>what objective criteria Fred is using, and because almost anyone who |>promotes a point of view sincerely believes that he or she is speaking |>truth. |> |>The determination to speak truth, while admirable, is not the same as |>NPOV, which is our policy. |> |> |> |>>Fred |>> |>> |>>>From: Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com |>>>Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>>>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT) |>>>To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? |>>> |>>>You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian |>>>country" (I know that's not what you said) or even |>>>"China is a controlling country" because that's an |>>>opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China |>>>might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian, |>>>we just want the best for our citizens", which makes |>>>the comment POV. You could say (in a later |>>>paragraph), "China is critisized for being |>>>[[authoritarianism and |>>>totalitarianism|authoritarianist]]. |>>> |>>>--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: |>>> |>>> |>>>>I stirred up this hornet's nest by inserting a link |>>>>to [[authoritarianism |>>>>and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first |>>>>paragraph of the article. |>>>>I think this is a fair characterization of the |>>>>regime (regardless of what |>>>>ever other adjective might describe it). |> |>-- |>Vicki Rosenzweig |>vr@redbird.org |>http://www.redbird.org |> |>_______________________________________________ |>WikiEN-l mailing list |>WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org |>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l | | | _______________________________________________ | WikiEN-l mailing list | WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org | http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
- -- ~ Sean Barrett | John and Mary had never met. They were like ~ sean@epoptic.com | two hummingbirds who had also never met.
No, the Roman Catholic church is authoritarian in different ways, for example, one person, the Pope, has the power to issue edits binding upon all catholics. There is a hierarchal structure, an official canon, and discipline applied to those within the hierachy who deviate from the canon. All goes to show that if you change the subject, you change the question and the answer.
Fred
From: Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org Organization: Boskonia Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:06:19 -0700 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
And the Catholic Church (for another example you used of an present-day authoritarian organization) does any of these things? I can (I have) written letters extremely critical of Cardinal Mahoney that were published -- without interference -- in the free press. Should I fear the Spanish Inquisition?
Methinks your definition of "authoritarian organization" is remarkably broad if it lumps the Catholic Church in with the Butchers of Beijing.
It makes me wonder how fluid your definition of "truth" is.
Fred Bauder wrote: | The criteria are control of the press, repression of political speech, | imprisonment of those who atempt to organize an opposing political party or | a union, etc. | | Fred | | |>From: Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org |>Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:31:58 -0400 |>To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? |> |>At 05:16 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote: |> |>>I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another |>>example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the opinion of |>>vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met constitute an |>>authoritarian government. |> |>This concerns me, not because I disagree, but because I don't know |>what objective criteria Fred is using, and because almost anyone who |>promotes a point of view sincerely believes that he or she is speaking |>truth. |> |>The determination to speak truth, while admirable, is not the same as |>NPOV, which is our policy. |> |> |> |>>Fred |>> |>> |>>>From: Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com |>>>Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>>>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT) |>>>To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? |>>> |>>>You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian |>>>country" (I know that's not what you said) or even |>>>"China is a controlling country" because that's an |>>>opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China |>>>might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian, |>>>we just want the best for our citizens", which makes |>>>the comment POV. You could say (in a later |>>>paragraph), "China is critisized for being |>>>[[authoritarianism and |>>>totalitarianism|authoritarianist]]. |>>> |>>>--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: |>>> |>>> |>>>>I stirred up this hornet's nest by inserting a link |>>>>to [[authoritarianism |>>>>and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first |>>>>paragraph of the article. |>>>>I think this is a fair characterization of the |>>>>regime (regardless of what |>>>>ever other adjective might describe it). |> |>-- |>Vicki Rosenzweig |>vr@redbird.org |>http://www.redbird.org |> |>_______________________________________________ |>WikiEN-l mailing list |>WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org |>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l | | | _______________________________________________ | WikiEN-l mailing list | WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org | http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
~ Sean Barrett | John and Mary had never met. They were like ~ sean@epoptic.com | two hummingbirds who had also never met. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQE+qc16v/8xpnvE6M8RAgzSAJwIu7RjTPanefl1Dhj2tpYHIVDL+QCbBPQg 38nIk0sB52iPC06Fw/0onlk= =ErzZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You'll have to do better than that! - your description applies equally well to the United States government, and to both the Green Party and Libertarian Party. And therein lies the problem with attempts to say a government is or is not authoritarian, communist, or whatever - those kinds of terms are editorial assessments of a pattern of objectively observed behavior. Even if 99% of people believe the assessment, the only truly NPOV thing you can say is "99% of observers believe the government to be authoritarian".
Stan
Fred Bauder wrote:
No, the Roman Catholic church is authoritarian in different ways, for example, one person, the Pope, has the power to issue edits binding upon all catholics. There is a hierarchal structure, an official canon, and discipline applied to those within the hierachy who deviate from the canon. All goes to show that if you change the subject, you change the question and the answer.
Fred
From: Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org Organization: Boskonia Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:06:19 -0700 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
And the Catholic Church (for another example you used of an present-day authoritarian organization) does any of these things? I can (I have) written letters extremely critical of Cardinal Mahoney that were published -- without interference -- in the free press. Should I fear the Spanish Inquisition?
Methinks your definition of "authoritarian organization" is remarkably broad if it lumps the Catholic Church in with the Butchers of Beijing.
It makes me wonder how fluid your definition of "truth" is.
Fred Bauder wrote: | The criteria are control of the press, repression of political speech, | imprisonment of those who atempt to organize an opposing political party or | a union, etc. | | Fred | | |>From: Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org |>Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:31:58 -0400 |>To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? |> |>At 05:16 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote: |> |>>I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another |>>example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the opinion of |>>vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met constitute an |>>authoritarian government. |> |>This concerns me, not because I disagree, but because I don't know |>what objective criteria Fred is using, and because almost anyone who |>promotes a point of view sincerely believes that he or she is speaking |>truth. |> |>The determination to speak truth, while admirable, is not the same as |>NPOV, which is our policy. |> |> |> |>>Fred |>> |>> |>>>From: Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com |>>>Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>>>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT) |>>>To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? |>>> |>>>You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian |>>>country" (I know that's not what you said) or even |>>>"China is a controlling country" because that's an |>>>opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China |>>>might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian, |>>>we just want the best for our citizens", which makes |>>>the comment POV. You could say (in a later |>>>paragraph), "China is critisized for being |>>>[[authoritarianism and |>>>totalitarianism|authoritarianist]]. |>>> |>>>--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: |>>> |>>> |>>>>I stirred up this hornet's nest by inserting a link |>>>>to [[authoritarianism |>>>>and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first |>>>>paragraph of the article. |>>>>I think this is a fair characterization of the |>>>>regime (regardless of what |>>>>ever other adjective might describe it). |> |>-- |>Vicki Rosenzweig |>vr@redbird.org |>http://www.redbird.org |> |>_______________________________________________ |>WikiEN-l mailing list |>WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org |>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l | | | _______________________________________________ | WikiEN-l mailing list | WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org | http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
~ Sean Barrett | John and Mary had never met. They were like ~ sean@epoptic.com | two hummingbirds who had also never met. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQE+qc16v/8xpnvE6M8RAgzSAJwIu7RjTPanefl1Dhj2tpYHIVDL+QCbBPQg 38nIk0sB52iPC06Fw/0onlk= =ErzZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hell, '''Wikipedia''' is authoritarian under the Bauder definition! One person, Jimbo, has the power to issue edicts (and edits, for that matter) binding upon all users of his system. There is a hierarchical (hierarchal?) structure of privileges, and official canon (NPOV), and if you deviate from the canon, you are excommunicat- er, banned!
Stan Shebs wrote: | You'll have to do better than that! - your description applies equally | well to the United States government, and to both the Green Party | and Libertarian Party. And therein lies the problem with attempts | to say a government is or is not authoritarian, communist, or | whatever - those kinds of terms are editorial assessments of a | pattern of objectively observed behavior. Even if 99% of people | believe the assessment, the only truly NPOV thing you can say is | "99% of observers believe the government to be authoritarian". | | Stan | | Fred Bauder wrote: | |> No, the Roman Catholic church is authoritarian in different ways, for |> example, one person, the Pope, has the power to issue edits binding |> upon all |> catholics. There is a hierarchal structure, an official canon, and |> discipline applied to those within the hierachy who deviate from the |> canon. |> All goes to show that if you change the subject, you change the |> question and |> the answer. |> |> Fred |> |> |>> From: Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org |>> Organization: Boskonia |>> Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:06:19 -0700 |>> To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? |>> |>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |>> Hash: SHA1 |>> |>> And the Catholic Church (for another example you used of an present-day |>> authoritarian organization) does any of these things? I can (I have) |>> written letters extremely critical of Cardinal Mahoney that were |>> published -- without interference -- in the free press. Should I fear |>> the Spanish Inquisition? |>> |>> Methinks your definition of "authoritarian organization" is remarkably |>> broad if it lumps the Catholic Church in with the Butchers of Beijing. |>> |>> It makes me wonder how fluid your definition of "truth" is. |>> |>> |>> |>> Fred Bauder wrote: |>> | The criteria are control of the press, repression of political speech, |>> | imprisonment of those who atempt to organize an opposing political |>> party or |>> | a union, etc. |>> | |>> | Fred |>> | |>> | |>> |>From: Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org |>> |>Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>> |>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:31:58 -0400 |>> |>To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>> |>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? |>> |> |>> |>At 05:16 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote: |>> |> |>> |>>I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another |>> |>>example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the |>> opinion of |>> |>>vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met |>> constitute an |>> |>>authoritarian government. |>> |> |>> |>This concerns me, not because I disagree, but because I don't know |>> |>what objective criteria Fred is using, and because almost anyone who |>> |>promotes a point of view sincerely believes that he or she is speaking |>> |>truth. |>> |> |>> |>The determination to speak truth, while admirable, is not the same as |>> |>NPOV, which is our policy. |>> |> |>> |> |>> |> |>> |>>Fred |>> |>> |>> |>> |>> |>>>From: Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com |>> |>>>Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>> |>>>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT) |>> |>>>To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>> |>>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? |>> |>>> |>> |>>>You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian |>> |>>>country" (I know that's not what you said) or even |>> |>>>"China is a controlling country" because that's an |>> |>>>opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China |>> |>>>might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian, |>> |>>>we just want the best for our citizens", which makes |>> |>>>the comment POV. You could say (in a later |>> |>>>paragraph), "China is critisized for being |>> |>>>[[authoritarianism and |>> |>>>totalitarianism|authoritarianist]]. |>> |>>> |>> |>>>--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: |>> |>>> |>> |>>> |>> |>>>>I stirred up this hornet's nest by inserting a link |>> |>>>>to [[authoritarianism |>> |>>>>and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first |>> |>>>>paragraph of the article. |>> |>>>>I think this is a fair characterization of the |>> |>>>>regime (regardless of what |>> |>>>>ever other adjective might describe it). |>> |> |>> |>-- |>> |>Vicki Rosenzweig |>> |>vr@redbird.org |>> |>http://www.redbird.org |>> |> |>> |>_______________________________________________ |>> |>WikiEN-l mailing list |>> |>WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org |>> |>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |>> | |>> | |>> | _______________________________________________ |>> | WikiEN-l mailing list |>> | WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org |>> | http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |>> |>> |>> - -- |>> ~ Sean Barrett | John and Mary had never met. They were like |>> ~ sean@epoptic.com | two hummingbirds who had also never met. |>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |>> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) |>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |>> |>> iD8DBQE+qc16v/8xpnvE6M8RAgzSAJwIu7RjTPanefl1Dhj2tpYHIVDL+QCbBPQg |>> 38nIk0sB52iPC06Fw/0onlk= |>> =ErzZ |>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- -- ~ Sean Barrett | John and Mary had never met. They were like ~ sean@epoptic.com | two hummingbirds who had also never met.
No, a near anarchy is hardly an authoritarian institution. The only real requirement here is that movement be made toward creation of an enclyclopedia. In an authoritarian structure free discussion itself will get you into trouble. There is a difference between one thing and another. No amount of word play extinquishes that. Words and concepts do have generally accepted meanings that are available for us to use to distinquish one thing from another.
Fred
From: Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org Organization: Boskonia Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:24:20 -0700 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hell, '''Wikipedia''' is authoritarian under the Bauder definition! One person, Jimbo, has the power to issue edicts (and edits, for that matter) binding upon all users of his system. There is a hierarchical (hierarchal?) structure of privileges, and official canon (NPOV), and if you deviate from the canon, you are excommunicat- er, banned!
Stan Shebs wrote: | You'll have to do better than that! - your description applies equally | well to the United States government, and to both the Green Party | and Libertarian Party. And therein lies the problem with attempts | to say a government is or is not authoritarian, communist, or | whatever - those kinds of terms are editorial assessments of a | pattern of objectively observed behavior. Even if 99% of people | believe the assessment, the only truly NPOV thing you can say is | "99% of observers believe the government to be authoritarian". | | Stan | | Fred Bauder wrote: | |> No, the Roman Catholic church is authoritarian in different ways, for |> example, one person, the Pope, has the power to issue edits binding |> upon all |> catholics. There is a hierarchal structure, an official canon, and |> discipline applied to those within the hierachy who deviate from the |> canon. |> All goes to show that if you change the subject, you change the |> question and |> the answer. |> |> Fred |> |> |>> From: Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org |>> Organization: Boskonia |>> Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:06:19 -0700 |>> To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? |>> |>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |>> Hash: SHA1 |>> |>> And the Catholic Church (for another example you used of an present-day |>> authoritarian organization) does any of these things? I can (I have) |>> written letters extremely critical of Cardinal Mahoney that were |>> published -- without interference -- in the free press. Should I fear |>> the Spanish Inquisition? |>> |>> Methinks your definition of "authoritarian organization" is remarkably |>> broad if it lumps the Catholic Church in with the Butchers of Beijing. |>> |>> It makes me wonder how fluid your definition of "truth" is. |>> |>> |>> |>> Fred Bauder wrote: |>> | The criteria are control of the press, repression of political speech, |>> | imprisonment of those who atempt to organize an opposing political |>> party or |>> | a union, etc. |>> | |>> | Fred |>> | |>> | |>> |>From: Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org |>> |>Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>> |>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:31:58 -0400 |>> |>To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>> |>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? |>> |> |>> |>At 05:16 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote: |>> |> |>> |>>I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another |>> |>>example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the |>> opinion of |>> |>>vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met |>> constitute an |>> |>>authoritarian government. |>> |> |>> |>This concerns me, not because I disagree, but because I don't know |>> |>what objective criteria Fred is using, and because almost anyone who |>> |>promotes a point of view sincerely believes that he or she is speaking |>> |>truth. |>> |> |>> |>The determination to speak truth, while admirable, is not the same as |>> |>NPOV, which is our policy. |>> |> |>> |> |>> |> |>> |>>Fred |>> |>> |>> |>> |>> |>>>From: Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com |>> |>>>Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>> |>>>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT) |>> |>>>To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>> |>>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? |>> |>>> |>> |>>>You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian |>> |>>>country" (I know that's not what you said) or even |>> |>>>"China is a controlling country" because that's an |>> |>>>opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China |>> |>>>might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian, |>> |>>>we just want the best for our citizens", which makes |>> |>>>the comment POV. You could say (in a later |>> |>>>paragraph), "China is critisized for being |>> |>>>[[authoritarianism and |>> |>>>totalitarianism|authoritarianist]]. |>> |>>> |>> |>>>--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: |>> |>>> |>> |>>> |>> |>>>>I stirred up this hornet's nest by inserting a link |>> |>>>>to [[authoritarianism |>> |>>>>and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first |>> |>>>>paragraph of the article. |>> |>>>>I think this is a fair characterization of the |>> |>>>>regime (regardless of what |>> |>>>>ever other adjective might describe it). |>> |> |>> |>-- |>> |>Vicki Rosenzweig |>> |>vr@redbird.org |>> |>http://www.redbird.org |>> |> |>> |>_______________________________________________ |>> |>WikiEN-l mailing list |>> |>WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org |>> |>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |>> | |>> | |>> | _______________________________________________ |>> | WikiEN-l mailing list |>> | WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org |>> | http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |>> |>> |>> - -- |>> ~ Sean Barrett | John and Mary had never met. They were like |>> ~ sean@epoptic.com | two hummingbirds who had also never met. |>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |>> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) |>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |>> |>> iD8DBQE+qc16v/8xpnvE6M8RAgzSAJwIu7RjTPanefl1Dhj2tpYHIVDL+QCbBPQg |>> 38nIk0sB52iPC06Fw/0onlk= |>> =ErzZ |>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
~ Sean Barrett | John and Mary had never met. They were like ~ sean@epoptic.com | two hummingbirds who had also never met. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQE+qd/Dv/8xpnvE6M8RAvxvAKCm6Q3BuD1hUIANL7q50VIFeJpQBACcDHXc szRrZUPy30QXy8G4ONxelmg= =l5lW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
"In an authoritarian structure free discussion itself will get you into trouble."
So tell me again how is the Catholic Church authoritarian?
"There is a difference between one thing and another. No amount of word play extinquishes that."
I entirely agree. You are misusing the word "authoritarian" to mean "that which Bauder dislikes."
Fred Bauder wrote: | No, a near anarchy is hardly an authoritarian institution. The only real | requirement here is that movement be made toward creation of an | enclyclopedia. In an authoritarian structure free discussion itself will get | you into trouble. There is a difference between one thing and another. No | amount of word play extinquishes that. Words and concepts do have generally | accepted meanings that are available for us to use to distinquish one thing | from another. | | Fred
I don't think so, not a lot of elections held in the Catholic Church, and while there is a lot of discussion, a priest or bishop who deviates on certain points is soon in serious trouble. Whatever the defects of the United States the situation differs markedly. Bottom line, words have established meanings to most of us. Everything isn't the same, some institutions are relatively democratic, some are relatively authorititarian and may fairly be so described. No need to throw your mind out of gear.
Fred
From: Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:09:26 -0700 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
You'll have to do better than that! - your description applies equally well to the United States government, and to both the Green Party and Libertarian Party. And therein lies the problem with attempts to say a government is or is not authoritarian, communist, or whatever - those kinds of terms are editorial assessments of a pattern of objectively observed behavior. Even if 99% of people believe the assessment, the only truly NPOV thing you can say is "99% of observers believe the government to be authoritarian".
Stan
Fred Bauder wrote:
No, the Roman Catholic church is authoritarian in different ways, for example, one person, the Pope, has the power to issue edits binding upon all catholics. There is a hierarchal structure, an official canon, and discipline applied to those within the hierachy who deviate from the canon. All goes to show that if you change the subject, you change the question and the answer.
Fred
From: Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org Organization: Boskonia Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:06:19 -0700 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
And the Catholic Church (for another example you used of an present-day authoritarian organization) does any of these things? I can (I have) written letters extremely critical of Cardinal Mahoney that were published -- without interference -- in the free press. Should I fear the Spanish Inquisition?
Methinks your definition of "authoritarian organization" is remarkably broad if it lumps the Catholic Church in with the Butchers of Beijing.
It makes me wonder how fluid your definition of "truth" is.
Fred Bauder wrote: | The criteria are control of the press, repression of political speech, | imprisonment of those who atempt to organize an opposing political party or | a union, etc. | | Fred | | |>From: Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org |>Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:31:58 -0400 |>To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? |> |>At 05:16 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote: |> |>>I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another |>>example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the opinion of |>>vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met constitute an |>>authoritarian government. |> |>This concerns me, not because I disagree, but because I don't know |>what objective criteria Fred is using, and because almost anyone who |>promotes a point of view sincerely believes that he or she is speaking |>truth. |> |>The determination to speak truth, while admirable, is not the same as |>NPOV, which is our policy. |> |> |> |>>Fred |>> |>> |>>>From: Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com |>>>Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>>>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT) |>>>To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? |>>> |>>>You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian |>>>country" (I know that's not what you said) or even |>>>"China is a controlling country" because that's an |>>>opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China |>>>might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian, |>>>we just want the best for our citizens", which makes |>>>the comment POV. You could say (in a later |>>>paragraph), "China is critisized for being |>>>[[authoritarianism and |>>>totalitarianism|authoritarianist]]. |>>> |>>>--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: |>>> |>>> |>>>>I stirred up this hornet's nest by inserting a link |>>>>to [[authoritarianism |>>>>and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first |>>>>paragraph of the article. |>>>>I think this is a fair characterization of the |>>>>regime (regardless of what |>>>>ever other adjective might describe it). |> |>-- |>Vicki Rosenzweig |>vr@redbird.org |>http://www.redbird.org |> |>_______________________________________________ |>WikiEN-l mailing list |>WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org |>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l | | | _______________________________________________ | WikiEN-l mailing list | WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org | http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
~ Sean Barrett | John and Mary had never met. They were like ~ sean@epoptic.com | two hummingbirds who had also never met. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQE+qc16v/8xpnvE6M8RAgzSAJwIu7RjTPanefl1Dhj2tpYHIVDL+QCbBPQg 38nIk0sB52iPC06Fw/0onlk= =ErzZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[Warning: the post below wanders into the organization of the Catholic Church before returning to the subject at hand.]
At 07:56 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
I don't think so, not a lot of elections held in the Catholic Church,
How did you think they select popes, then?
In the jargon of political science, the Roman Catholic Church (or, more specifically for this purpose, the Vatican City) is an elective monarchy.
and while there is a lot of discussion, a priest or bishop who deviates on certain points is soon in serious trouble.
For values of "trouble" that, to a nonbeliever, translate as "may lose his job if he continues to disagree publicly with his employer." I realize that this is a serious matter to a believer--but nobody is required to belong to this organization, and the pope has no prisons. Yes, there's an official newspaper, but the church does not have the authority to stop the publication of dissenting publications: L'Osservatore Romano has the same status as Ari Fleischer's public statements, not as Pravda in the bad old days [1].
Whatever the defects of the United States the situation differs markedly.
If George Bush decides I am a threat to US security, I can be imprisoned indefinitely without trial. If Karol Wojtyla decides I am a threat to the Catholic Church, he can say so publicly, and I can go about my normal occasions. Yes, the situation differs markedly, but maybe not in the way you're trying to suggest.
Bottom line, words have established meanings to most of us. Everything isn't the same, some institutions are relatively democratic, some are relatively authorititarian and may fairly be so described.
And now you're saying "relatively"; are you proposing an article that describes China as "relatively authoritarian", and if so, do you plan to give a scale from 0 to 100, with notes of where other nations fall on that scale?
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
At 07:56 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
I don't think so, not a lot of elections held in the Catholic Church,
How did you think they select popes, then?
The only electors are the red-robed "princes of the church".
while there is a lot of discussion, a priest or bishop who deviates on certain points is soon in serious trouble.
For values of "trouble" that, to a nonbeliever, translate as "may lose his job if he continues to disagree publicly with his employer." I realize that this is a serious matter to a believer--but nobody is required to belong to this organization, and the pope has no prisons. Yes, there's an official newspaper, but the church does not have the authority to stop the publication of dissenting publications: L'Osservatore Romano has the same status as Ari Fleischer's public statements, not as Pravda in the bad old days [1].
The church essentially lost effective temporal power in 1870. There was a dispute in the Vancouver area a few years ago when a Catholic school fired a teacher because in her personal life she was living with somone out of wedlock. At least that much power continues to be wielded. And what could be more authoritarian than the church's attitude on abortion rights where any criticism is seriously discouraged?.
In these declining years of the church the threat of excommunication does not have the power that it once had. Religions tend to maintain a hold on people that is impervious to reason. If a person has been a true believer for many years, expulsion from the religious community can be very traumatic.
Whatever the defects of the United States the situation differs markedly.
If George Bush decides I am a threat to US security, I can be imprisoned indefinitely without trial. If Karol Wojtyla decides I am a threat to the Catholic Church, he can say so publicly, and I can go about my normal occasions. Yes, the situation differs markedly, but maybe not in the way you're trying to suggest.
"Democracy" is often nothing more than a thin veneer that power elites suffer as a means of controlling the masses.
Bottom line, words have established meanings to most of us. Everything isn't the same, some institutions are relatively democratic, some are relatively authorititarian and may fairly be so described.
And now you're saying "relatively"; are you proposing an article that describes China as "relatively authoritarian", and if so, do you plan to give a scale from 0 to 100, with notes of where other nations fall on that scale?
To say that China is "relatively" authoritarian is an improvement for Fred over simply saying "China is authoritarian" It opens up the possibility of comparison with some other state. That's a small positive step toward understanding just what "authoritarian" means.
I do have more of a problem with his "words have established meanings to most of us." The "established meanings" that most of us have are not the smae, and that gives us problems. The thought that the meaning of a word would somehow be established democraticly makes me shudder. Once such a democratic result has been achieved do we then apply de Tocqueville's Tyranny of the Majority to enforce it. Fred's view of language does not appear to be very sophisticated.
Eclecticology
From: Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org And now you're saying "relatively"; are you proposing an article that describes China as "relatively authoritarian", and if so, do you plan to give a scale from 0 to 100, with notes of where other nations fall on that scale?
China can fairly be described as authoritarian. They have progressed there from a situation that could be fairly described as totalitarian, and in some ways still is. There is a range within which an objective description of the situation justifies that description of the situation. This situation is properly discussed in the article [[authoritarianism and totalitarianism]] which is the appropriate link from use of both the words authoritarian and totalitarian.
We get all over those who would deny the holocaust; no reason not to not adopt the same sort of disrespect and impose the same restraints upon those who would deny the sins of Marxism-Leninism.
Wikipedia should simply be a resource that delivers balanced objective information, however offensive it may be to partisan viewpoints.
Exclusion of unfavorable information is not a neutral point of view, but bowing to what is essentially a demand that such information be censored.
Fred
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fred Bauder wrote: | We get all over those who would deny the holocaust; no reason not to not | adopt the same sort of disrespect and impose the same restraints upon those | who would deny the sins of Marxism-Leninism.
At last! An example of authoritarianism we can all understand! Deviate from the canon, and you will be disciplined!
- -- ~ Sean Barrett | Just because everything is different ~ sean@epoptic.com | doesn't mean anything has changed.
Could the interested parties in this discussion please take it off this list and onto a talk page on the Wikipedia ([[Communist state]] or [[China]] or wherever you fancy)? That way, people interested in the subject but not on the mailing list can take part in the discussion, and those on the mailing list but uninterested in the subject don't have to hit "delete" quite so often.
lp (Camembert)
Fred Bauder wrote:
We get all over those who would deny the holocaust; no reason not to not adopt the same sort of disrespect and impose the same restraints upon those who would deny the sins of Marxism-Leninism.
I agree completely, but neither case requires us to deviate from NPOV.
The simplest tool for dealing with this sort of situation is to "go meta". We don't _exclude_ unfavorable information, we _attribute_ it.
Exclusion of unfavorable information is not a neutral point of view, but bowing to what is essentially a demand that such information be censored.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
We get all over those who would deny the holocaust; no reason not to not adopt the same sort of disrespect and impose the same restraints upon those who would deny the sins of Marxism-Leninism.
I agree completely, but neither case requires us to deviate from NPOV.
My complaint about Fred's argument in this is that he compared an event with a philosophy. The sinfulness that may be associated with Marxism-Leninism is not a sin of the philosophy but of those who sought to impose it.
Ec
Heh, it is a philosophy of imposition.
Fred
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 00:47:22 -0700 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
We get all over those who would deny the holocaust; no reason not to not adopt the same sort of disrespect and impose the same restraints upon those who would deny the sins of Marxism-Leninism.
I agree completely, but neither case requires us to deviate from NPOV.
My complaint about Fred's argument in this is that he compared an event with a philosophy. The sinfulness that may be associated with Marxism-Leninism is not a sin of the philosophy but of those who sought to impose it.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
Heh, it is a philosophy of imposition.
Fred
What quotes do you have from Marx or Lenin to back that up. Marx was never in power, and Lenin never went half way around the world to impose regime change. Marx, in particular, was probably naïve enough to believe that capitalism would collapse of its own accord.
Ec
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
We get all over those who would deny the holocaust; no reason not to not adopt the same sort of disrespect and impose the same restraints upon those who would deny the sins of Marxism-Leninism.
I agree completely, but neither case requires us to deviate from NPOV.
My complaint about Fred's argument in this is that he compared an event with a philosophy. The sinfulness that may be associated with Marxism-Leninism is not a sin of the philosophy but of those who sought to impose it.
Please let's not discuss politics on the list.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Heh, it is a philosophy of imposition.
Fred
What quotes do you have from Marx or Lenin to back that up. Marx was never in power, and Lenin never went half way around the world to impose regime change. Marx, in particular, was probably naïve enough to believe that capitalism would collapse of its own accord.
Ec
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
We get all over those who would deny the holocaust; no reason not to not adopt the same sort of disrespect and impose the same restraints upon those who would deny the sins of Marxism-Leninism.
I agree completely, but neither case requires us to deviate from NPOV.
My complaint about Fred's argument in this is that he compared an event with a philosophy. The sinfulness that may be associated with Marxism-Leninism is not a sin of the philosophy but of those who sought to impose it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Please explain what discipline is applied to those within the hierachy who deviate from the canon in the United States government. Zoe, who is tired of being polite
Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:You'll have to do better than that! - your description applies equally well to the United States government, and to both the Green Party and Libertarian Party. And therein lies the problem with attempts to say a government is or is not authoritarian, communist, or whatever - those kinds of terms are editorial assessments of a pattern of objectively observed behavior. Even if 99% of people believe the assessment, the only truly NPOV thing you can say is "99% of observers believe the government to be authoritarian".
Stan
Fred Bauder wrote:
No, the Roman Catholic church is authoritarian in different ways, for example, one person, the Pope, has the power to issue edits binding upon all catholics. There is a hierarchal structure, an official canon, and discipline applied to those within the hierachy who deviate from the canon. All goes to show that if you change the subject, you change the question and the answer.
Fred
From: Sean Barrett Organization: Boskonia Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:06:19 -0700 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
And the Catholic Church (for another example you used of an present-day authoritarian organization) does any of these things? I can (I have) written letters extremely critical of Cardinal Mahoney that were published -- without interference -- in the free press. Should I fear the Spanish Inquisition?
Methinks your definition of "authoritarian organization" is remarkably broad if it lumps the Catholic Church in with the Butchers of Beijing.
It makes me wonder how fluid your definition of "truth" is.
Fred Bauder wrote: | The criteria are control of the press, repression of political speech, | imprisonment of those who atempt to organize an opposing political party or | a union, etc. | | Fred | | |>From: Vicki Rosenzweig |>Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:31:58 -0400 |>To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? |> |>At 05:16 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote: |> |>>I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another |>>example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the opinion of |>>vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met constitute an |>>authoritarian government. |> |>This concerns me, not because I disagree, but because I don't know |>what objective criteria Fred is using, and because almost anyone who |>promotes a point of view sincerely believes that he or she is speaking |>truth. |> |>The determination to speak truth, while admirable, is not the same as |>NPOV, which is our policy. |> |> |> |>>Fred |>> |>> |>>>From: Daniel Ehrenberg
|>>>Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>>>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT) |>>>To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |>>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? |>>> |>>>You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian |>>>country" (I know that's not what you said) or even |>>>"China is a controlling country" because that's an |>>>opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China |>>>might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian, |>>>we just want the best for our citizens", which makes |>>>the comment POV. You could say (in a later |>>>paragraph), "China is critisized for being |>>>[[authoritarianism and |>>>totalitarianism|authoritarianist]]. |>>> |>>>--- Fred Bauder wrote: |>>> |>>> |>>>>I stirred up this hornet's nest by inserting a link |>>>>to [[authoritarianism |>>>>and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first |>>>>paragraph of the article. |>>>>I think this is a fair characterization of the |>>>>regime (regardless of what |>>>>ever other adjective might describe it). |> |>-- |>Vicki Rosenzweig |>vr@redbird.org |>http://www.redbird.org |> |>_______________________________________________ |>WikiEN-l mailing list |>WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org |>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l | | | _______________________________________________ | WikiEN-l mailing list | WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org | http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
~ Sean Barrett | John and Mary had never met. They were like ~ sean@epoptic.com | two hummingbirds who had also never met. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQE+qc16v/8xpnvE6M8RAgzSAJwIu7RjTPanefl1Dhj2tpYHIVDL+QCbBPQg 38nIk0sB52iPC06Fw/0onlk= =ErzZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
Zoe wrote:
Please explain what discipline is applied to those within the hierachy who deviate from the canon in the United States government.
Well, you can get fired if you're not in one of the protected Civil Service jobs. There is also a whole system of rewards and punishments, for instance in choice of foreign postings in the State Dept, choice of assigned commands in the military, etc.
But I think you missed my point. I don't consider the US govt to be at all authoritarian; Fred Bauder's definition was so broad that any non-anarchy would fit. A cleverer definition might have said something about criminal penalties for political dissent, which is not too hard to test for, although it doesn't really work for private organizations that one might think of as "authoritarian".
Stan
Zoe, who is tired of being polite
*/Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com/* wrote:
You'll have to do better than that! - your description applies equally well to the United States government, and to both the Green Party and Libertarian Party. And therein lies the problem with attempts to say a government is or is not authoritarian, communist, or whatever - those kinds of terms are editorial assessments of a pattern of objectively observed behavior. Even if 99% of people believe the assessment, the only truly NPOV thing you can say is "99% of observers believe the government to be authoritarian". Stan Fred Bauder wrote: >No, the Roman Catholic church is authoritarian in different ways, for >example, one person, the Pope, has the power to issue edits binding upon all >catholics. There is a hierarchal structure, an official canon, and >discipline applied to those within the hierachy who deviate from the canon.>All goes to show that if you change the subject, you change the question and >the answer. > >Fred > > >>From: Sean Barrett >>Organization: Boskonia >>Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org >>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:06:19 -0700 >>To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org >>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? >> >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>Hash: SHA1 >> >>And the Catholic Church (for another example you used of an present-day >>authoritarian organization) does any of these things? I can (I have) >>written letters extremely critical of Cardinal Mahoney that were >>published -- without interference -- in the free press. Should I fear >>the Spanish Inquisition? >> >>Methinks your definition of "authoritarian organization" is remarkably >>broad if it lumps the C! atholic Church in with the Butchers of Beijing. >> >>It makes me wonder how fluid your definition of "truth" is. >> >> >> >>Fred Bauder wrote: >>| The criteria are control of the press, repression of political speech, >>| imprisonment of those who atempt to organize an opposing political >>party or >>| a union, etc. >>| >>| Fred >>| >>| >>|>From: Vicki Rosenzweig >>|>Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org >>|>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:31:58 -0400 >>|>To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org >>|>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? >>|> >>|>At 05:16 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote: >>|> >>|>>I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another >>|>>example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a mat! ter of the opinion of >>|>>vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met constitute an >>|>>authoritarian government. >>|> >>|>This concerns me, not because I disagree, but because I don't know >>|>what objective criteria Fred is using, and because almost anyone who >>|>promotes a point of view sincerely believes that he or she is speaking >>|>truth. >>|> >>|>The determination to speak truth, while admirable, is not the same as >>|>NPOV, which is our policy. >>|> >>|> >>|> >>|>>Fred >>|>> >>|>> >>|>>>From: Daniel Ehrenberg >>|>>>Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org >>|>>>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT) >>|>>>To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org >>|>>&! gt;Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China? >>|>>> >>|>>>You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian >>|>>>country" (I know that's not what you said) or even >>|>>>"China is a controlling country" because that's an >>|>>>opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China >>|>>>might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian, >>|>>>we just want the best for our citizens", which makes >>|>>>the comment POV. You could say (in a later >>|>>>paragraph), "China is critisized for being >>|>>>[[authoritarianism and >>|>>>totalitarianism|authoritarianist]]. >>|>>> >>|>>>--- Fred Bauder wrote: >>|>>> >>|>>> >>|>>>>I stirred up this hornet's nest by inserting a l! ink >>|>>>>to [[authoritarianism >>|>>>>and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first >>|>>>>paragraph of the article. >>|>>>>I think this is a fair characterization of the >>|>>>>regime (regardless of what >>|>>>>ever other adjective might describe it). >>|> >>|>-- >>|>Vicki Rosenzweig >>|>vr@redbird.org >>|>http://www.redbird.org >>|> >>|>_______________________________________________ >>|>WikiEN-l mailing list >>|>WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org >>|>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >>| >>| >>| _______________________________________________ >>| WikiEN-l mailing list >>| WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org >>| http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> &g! t;> >>- -- >>~ Sean Barrett | John and Mary had never met. They were like >>~ sean@epoptic.com | two hummingbirds who had also never met. >>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32) >>Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org >> >>iD8DBQE+qc16v/8xpnvE6M8RAgzSAJwIu7RjTPanefl1Dhj2tpYHIVDL+QCbBPQg >>38nIk0sB52iPC06Fw/0onlk= >>=ErzZ >>-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >>_______________________________________________ >>WikiEN-l mailing list >>WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org >>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > >_______________________________________________ >WikiEN-l mailing list >WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org >http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l ! mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
Who decided that? Did you just make it up?
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The criteria are control of the press, repression of political speech, imprisonment of those who atempt to organize an opposing political party or a union, etc.
Fred
From: Vicki Rosenzweig vr@redbird.org Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:31:58 -0400 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
At 05:16 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic
church, for another
example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a
matter of the opinion of
vague critics. There are objective criteria which
if met constitute an
authoritarian government.
This concerns me, not because I disagree, but
because I don't know
what objective criteria Fred is using, and because
almost anyone who
promotes a point of view sincerely believes that
he or she is speaking
truth.
The determination to speak truth, while admirable,
is not the same as
NPOV, which is our policy.
Fred
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
It looks like there was a very long thread over the weekend, and I couldn't possibly weigh in on all of it. I *will* read all of it, though.
But from the outset, remember that Vicki has very well summed up my a priori position, with this:
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
The determination to speak truth, while admirable, is not the same as NPOV, which is our policy.
That's exactly right.
NPOV statements are a subset of statements that I think are true. Which subset? The set of statements that I think are true, and which almost everyone would also agree are true.
This usually means that NPOV statements are "softer" than we might like if we strive to speak the whole truth. I might want to say that China has a terrible human rights record. It's true, after all! But it is "softer" to say "China's human rights record has been criticized by X, Y, and Z."
Is China authoritarian? Sure it is. But it's not necessary for us to actualy make the claim ourselves.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Is China authoritarian? Sure it is. But it's not necessary for us to actualy make the claim ourselves.
Those who make the specific statement "China is authoritarian", and get flamed for it, cannot validly defend themselves by saying "I didn't know the word was loaded." :-)
Ec
Its the subject that is loaded. But it is and has been a part of our world and is thus a part of wikipedia (in appropriate contexts).
Fred
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 00:35:22 -0700 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Is China authoritarian? Sure it is. But it's not necessary for us to actualy make the claim ourselves.
Those who make the specific statement "China is authoritarian", and get flamed for it, cannot validly defend themselves by saying "I didn't know the word was loaded." :-)
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I don't think that Fred appreciates the power of the word. "In the beginning was the word...." To the Irish the word has been their most powerful defensive weapon in their battles against the beligerent warlords on the island to the east.
The choice of words which one makes can easily colour the POV of any article more effectively than blatant lies. China is what China is. If, as Fred proposes, China is authoritarian the facts will speak for themselves without the need for it to be spelled out.
Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
Its the subject that is loaded. But it is and has been a part of our world and is thus a part of wikipedia (in appropriate contexts).
Fred
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Is China authoritarian? Sure it is. But it's not necessary for us to actualy make the claim ourselves.
Those who make the specific statement "China is authoritarian", and get flamed for it, cannot validly defend themselves by saying "I didn't know the word was loaded." :-)
Ec
Yes, but who sets those criteria? Even if there were some official body of definitions of terms for government classification, there would still be those who opposed it.-LittleDan Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the opinion of vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met constitute an authoritarian government.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
No there is no official body of definition, there is simply what most of us mean by "authoritarian" as the concept is used to refer to certain patterns of behavior.
Fred
From: Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 16:45:44 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
Yes, but who sets those criteria? Even if there were some official body of definitions of terms for government classification, there would still be those who opposed it. -LittleDan
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the opinion of vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met constitute an authoritarian government.
Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
There still must be different meanings of the word authoritarian. For example, studies show that if parents use "authoritarian methods", meaning not too passive and not too punishing, then their kids will grow up to not be criminals. If there is not even an official definition, than what definition are you even reffering to? Maybe the definition you're using for authoritarian is "controls several aspects of life, including free speech." Maybe Joe (apoligies to Joe if he is on this mailing list, I just needed a name) thinks authoritarian means "Disobeying the every article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with the goal of restoring order." Who's right? What if China is in only one of those definitions? everything has two sides to it. You can't present one side and call it fact.
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
No there is no official body of definition, there is simply what most of us mean by "authoritarian" as the concept is used to refer to certain patterns of behavior.
Fred
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Regarding the policy issue, I wonder if our "standard techniques" for dealing with a controversy are perfectly adequate to deal with the issue. Ironically, the effort to clarify the issue for the mailing list may point the way to resolving the question on the page.
How about this:
China has been traditionally considered a communist state, although the Chinese Constitution states that China is a socialist state. Western scholars are moving away from the label "communist" and calling China "socialist", "[[late socialist]]", or "[[post socialist]]".
I'm not saying that this is a really *good* formulation; I'm sure it could be refined quite easily. But it eliminates a controversy by stating the controversy. All parties can agree to it.
--Jimbo
p.s. Regarding the content issue, it is my understanding that China is nowadays a confused and somewhat internally contradictory place. Shanghai in particular is often cited as being relatively capitalist, even! I don't really know anything about that other than what I read in the newspapers and magazines, though.
I have to agree that much of the situation in China is confused, but so too is the loose way that people often use words. The terms "communist state" or "socialist state" or "capitalist state" tend to be used as epthets more than as descriptions. The range of images that these terms evoke is often so broad as to be meaningless. The criticism intended by an anti-communist when he says "communist" can be taken as praise by one who supports such a system. Their usage frequently muddles the distinction between economic systems and political systems, though these terms are more properly applied to the former. But even when the terms are properly restrictively applied to the economic system that prevails in a state I am often left wondering whether the user really knew anything about economics. Even if the Chinese Constitution says that China is a socialist state, we always need to remember that the official version is not in English, and strange things can happen in the course of a translation.
Personally, I prefer to avoid these terms entirely. I would prefer to describe the system without attaching the label. If the description happens to co-incide with somebody's vision of the term so much the better, but then it is up to the reader to supply the term in his own mind. By supplying descriptions we perform a better encyclopedic service than by appealing to people's preconceptions.
As for "post-socialism" or "post-modernism" or "post-fooism", I know that when someone uses that prefix his commitment to jargon is complete. All that he is telling me is that one system which he didn't understand in the first place has evolved into a different system that he doesn't understand any better, and that they are somehow related in a way which he also does not understand.
Eclecticology