When one editor sees another not as human but as sub-human, intrinsically and irreversibly, such a dialogue, though it might find formal expression, is a caricature by any stretch.
The hardest thing with Wikipedia is to realize that two editors with diametrically opposite views both still are humans, and still can be reasonable people. Denying that your opponent is also human is a grave error and leads to lots of bad things happening in the world.
For an example of a well-behaved, NPOV-writing nazi (albeit a convert) see Spandau: The Secret Diaries by Albert Speer.
Certain religions and ideologies systematically devalue most of humanity. Wikipedia policies are a sustained assault against that frame of mind.
Fred
From: El C el.ceeh@gmail.com Reply-To: El C el.ceeh@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:51:50 -0500 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] When goals conflict: There is no "right" for everyoneto edit Wiki
When one editor sees another not as human but as sub-human, intrinsically and irreversibly, such a dialogue, though it might find formal expression, is a caricature by any stretch.
The hardest thing with Wikipedia is to realize that two editors with diametrically opposite views both still are humans, and still can be reasonable people. Denying that your opponent is also human is a grave error and leads to lots of bad things happening in the world.
For an example of a well-behaved, NPOV-writing nazi (albeit a convert) see Spandau: The Secret Diaries by Albert Speer.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:08:32 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Certain religions and ideologies systematically devalue most of humanity. Wikipedia policies are a sustained assault against that frame of mind.
Fred
Wikipedia policies are an attempt to facilitate the development of a free encyclopaedia for all. No more, no less. Not that I support religions or ideologies which deny humanity's true worth, but it's important to point out we aren't on a mission to re-educate (or even educate) people - just to simply develop an encyclopaedia that is free to all.
Language such as "a sustained assault" is out of place.
Zoney
Zoney (zoney.ie@gmail.com) [050224 12:43]:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:08:32 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Certain religions and ideologies systematically devalue most of humanity. Wikipedia policies are a sustained assault against that frame of mind.
Language such as "a sustained assault" is out of place.
It's a sustained defense. They see it as a sustained assault, however.
- d.
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:51:50 -0500, El C el.ceeh@gmail.com wrote:
When one editor sees another not as human but as sub-human, intrinsically and irreversibly, such a dialogue, though it might find formal expression, is a caricature by any stretch.
El C has eloquently summed up why we ought not to allow neo-Nazis to use Wikipedia's NPOV policy to force us to offer them a platform. A friend of mine is the headmaster of a school in an area of London with a large number of black and Asian students. Some students invited the British National Party, a white supremacist/separatist party, to speak to their debating society. The headmaster - a tolerant man who has defended openness and free speech all his life - stepped in and banned the speaker, the only time he has interfered in the debating society's choice of guest. When accused of censorship, he replied that the BNP wished that most of his students were not there, and perhaps even wished they had not been born or that they would die; and that therefore no meaningful dialogue or free exchange of ideas was possible because, as El C said, one side regarded the other as less than human.
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:51:50 -0500, El C el.ceeh@gmail.com wrote:
El C has eloquently summed up why we ought not to allow neo-Nazis to use Wikipedia's NPOV policy to force us to offer them a platform.
I don't believe anybody has been arguing that we should. Indeed the contention that NPOV implies giving any advocacy group a platform seems to this editor like a misreading of NPOV.
Tony, I agree that it's a misreading of NPOV, but it's a misreading that's common to many editors, who believe that NPOV means all minority groups have a right to air their views.
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 08:42:13 -0000 (GMT), Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
I don't believe anybody has been arguing that we should. Indeed the contention that NPOV implies giving any advocacy group a platform seems to this editor like a misreading of NPOV.
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:51:50 -0500, El C el.ceeh@gmail.com wrote:
El C has eloquently summed up why we ought not to allow neo-Nazis to use Wikipedia's NPOV policy to force us to offer them a platform.
This is a good example of our dilemma. Slimvirgin's friends says, "the BNP wished that most of his students were not there, and perhaps even wished they had not been born or that they would die" For Wikipedia purposes this information if true would be quite valuable. In our article on the BNP it says "The BNP denies [claims of racism] and states that many questionable characters have been expelled from the party; it publicly condemns both violence and racism." But those in the know are aware that they are lying and, in power, can be expected to revert to type.
Likewise, should the Maoist rebels in Nepal come to power, those in the know expect a bloodbath, although many of us would be happy to be proved wrong and see a genuine people's democracy emerge. Certainly we can put no such information in the article without a big fuss.
So it turns out that important information, indeed vital information regarding life and death issues, is verboten, should it offend.
This reminds me of the article I once wrote, [[US invasion of Iraq]]. It certainly created a big fuss at the time, being written 9 months before the invasion. The fact is, it is possible to know and there is no prescience or magic to it. Information of such a nature is derived from long standing past behavior that has been repeated over and over and over.
But to go back to the issue. In most political cases a neo-nazi or a Maoist or Marxist-Leninist will come on with a strong POV which they will express, both by adding material from their peculiar intellectual mileau and stongly opposing addition or retention of information from mainstream sources, especially information from those familiar with the workings of their particular faction. This was seen in the Herschelkrustovsky case with extreme opposition to the editing of Chip Berlet (Cberlet), who is thoroughly familiar with the twists and turns of Lyndon LaRouche.
It comes down in terms of Wikipedia policy to [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] and the particular offense: Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy or propaganda.
To repeat, as suitably modified: Certain religions and ideologies systematically devalue most of humanity. Wikipedia policies are a sustained defense against that frame of mind.
Fred
From: slimvirgin@gmail.com Reply-To: slimvirgin@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:57:33 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] When goals conflict: There is no "right" for everyoneto edit Wiki
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:51:50 -0500, El C el.ceeh@gmail.com wrote:
When one editor sees another not as human but as sub-human, intrinsically and irreversibly, such a dialogue, though it might find formal expression, is a caricature by any stretch.
El C has eloquently summed up why we ought not to allow neo-Nazis to use Wikipedia's NPOV policy to force us to offer them a platform. A friend of mine is the headmaster of a school in an area of London with a large number of black and Asian students. Some students invited the British National Party, a white supremacist/separatist party, to speak to their debating society. The headmaster - a tolerant man who has defended openness and free speech all his life - stepped in and banned the speaker, the only time he has interfered in the debating society's choice of guest. When accused of censorship, he replied that the BNP wished that most of his students were not there, and perhaps even wished they had not been born or that they would die; and that therefore no meaningful dialogue or free exchange of ideas was possible because, as El C said, one side regarded the other as less than human. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l