Jimbo's "double edge sword" comment was very well put. Both users function best on the Israeli-Palestinian articles when they have each other by the throat.
Btw, Sv's Bob Dylan allusion should be leaving us with more than the tune to "The Times They are a'Changin'" in our heads. Made with such decidedly bad taste, it started to prove me right sooner than I had expected. Israeli-Palestinian neutrality was little more than an equilibrium of RK and Sv. Without RK, Sv's side's going to have a far greater say over all the articles than ever - which will encourage new RK-types to invade the site in droves.
Those favoring a ban on RK are way off if they think that the outcome is going to be NPOV (or maybe they don't care - maybe their reasons are solely personal and ideological). I can understand that - I'd much rather work with the more reasonable Sv (whose worldview is by and large is far closer to mine than RK's is)- but that's not in Wikipedia's interests as a whole.
_________________________________________________________________ Frustrated with dial-up? Get high-speed for as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local service providers in your area). https://broadband.msn.com
"Abe Sokolov" abesokolov@hotmail.com writes:
Both users function best on the Israeli-Palestinian articles when they have each other by the throat.
Thats an inherently dysfunctional way of functioning.
If the way we want to create articles is to allow a pair of intransigent, biased contributors to butt heads repeatedly and then let a mediator piece an article together out of the fallout, then we're letting ourselves in for the tyranny of the obstreperous, in which meeker contributors (or those with less copious free time) will lose out in the endless edit wars.
And they'll leave, too. Its not as if this hasn't happened already.
What we need is not to ban these people, but say "Look, RK/Stevertigo" (or whoever, I don't mean to single people out in this), "you're a worthwhile, active contributor, but you're too close and/or feel too strongly about issues of Israel/Palestine/Iraq/US politics to be NPOV, even when you try to be. Your opinions and biases are just too entrenched.
Now, you must have other interests, about which you are able to talk, write and generally behave in a more calm and rational manner. How about directing your commendable efforts writing about them?"
Everyone has things with which they are deeply involved, about which they feel passionately, and its reasonable that people will want to write about them
Its just a shame that those are too often the things that they *shouldn't* write nominally NPOV articles about, for precisely those reasons.
Gareth Owen wrote:
"Abe Sokolov" abesokolov@hotmail.com writes:
Both users function best on the Israeli-Palestinian articles when they have each other by the throat.
Thats an inherently dysfunctional way of functioning.
In the cold war era when both sides were ponting nuclear missiles at the other it was MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) :-)
Ec
--- Abe Sokolov abesokolov@hotmail.com wrote:
Jimbo's "double edge sword" comment was very well put. Both users function best on the Israeli-Palestinian articles when they have each other by the throat.
Nonsense.
Btw, Sv's Bob Dylan allusion should be leaving us with more than the tune to "The Times They are a'Changin'" in our heads. Made with such decidedly bad taste, it started to prove me right sooner than I had expected. Israeli-Palestinian neutrality was little more than an equilibrium of RK and Sv. Without RK, Sv's side's going to have a far greater say over all the articles than ever - which will encourage new RK-types to invade the site in droves.
Nonsense.
Those favoring a ban on RK are way off if they think that the outcome is going to be NPOV (or maybe they don't care - maybe their reasons are solely personal and ideological). I can understand that - I'd much rather work with the more reasonable Sv (whose worldview is by and large is far closer to mine than RK's is)- but that's not in Wikipedia's interests as a whole.
Nonsense.
Respectfully, ~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
--- Abe Sokolov abesokolov@hotmail.com wrote:
Those favoring a ban on RK are way off if they think that the outcome is going to be NPOV (or maybe they don't care - maybe their reasons are solely personal and ideological). I can understand that - I'd much rather work with the more reasonable Sv (whose worldview is by and large is far closer to mine than RK's is)- but that's not in Wikipedia's interests as a whole.
So you don't agree that we should ban trolls? Maybe I'm misusing the term, but I though we said that trolls can be banned (but with discussion).
RK's banning wasn't just for trolling either. He vandalized four userpages, threatening to ban Erik (even though he's not, nor has ever been, a sysop). LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
--- Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Abe Sokolov abesokolov@hotmail.com wrote:
Those favoring a ban on RK are way off if they
think
that the outcome is going to be NPOV (or maybe they don't care - maybe their reasons are solely personal and ideological). I can understand that - I'd much rather work with the more reasonable Sv (whose worldview is by and large is far closer to mine than RK's is)- but that's not in Wikipedia's interests as a whole.
So you don't agree that we should ban trolls? Maybe I'm misusing the term, but I though we said that trolls can be banned (but with discussion).
RK's banning wasn't just for trolling either. He vandalized four userpages, threatening to ban Erik (even though he's not, nor has ever been, a sysop).
I think this is a good point, Dan and I was under the impression that Abe (with his RK=Stevertigo comparison) and Jimbo ( with his "double edged sword" comment) were alluding to me being a troll, and me paying a price somehow for RK's blowup. Fortunately I took Jimbo's advice from a year ago, and decided to just shut up. "RK" self-destructed like a monster villain at the end of a Troma movie, and all that's left now is 'Robert.'
In my haste, I may have skipped over Abe's compliment -- Thank you Abe-- (I note that RK told Bcorr that I and Martin were "highly intelligent and literate"... "anti-Semites." Which in my view is a contradiction, as anti-Semitism is a product of ignorace and bias.) But It doesnt change my mind, that attempts to create content should be engineered by an artificial WikiDarwinism or other imposings are foolish, and lacking in [[m:Wikifaith]].
Reasons: 1-- You cant reasonably set the NPOV terms--see below. 2. You cant quantify people to mere political positions ( the 'finite identity complex' was RK's bug ) 3. Its disingenuous to claim that the conflict is a battle of equal but opposing views. It is not-- It's a moral battle between objective Moralists against foolish and closed-minded people on both sides who seek to perpetuate the violence by emphasizing the divisions of ethnicity, religion, and nationalism over inclusiveness of a Humanist POV. Is a neutral ( or humanist ) POV to be considered just another "POV"?
Respectfully, ~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
--- Abe Sokolov abesokolov@hotmail.com wrote:
Those favoring a ban on RK are way off if they think that the outcome is going to be NPOV (or maybe they don't care - maybe their reasons are solely personal and ideological). I can understand that - I'd much rather work with the more reasonable Sv (whose worldview is by and large is far closer to mine than RK's is)- but that's not in Wikipedia's interests as a whole.
So you don't agree that we should ban trolls? Maybe I'm misusing the term, but I though we said that trolls can be banned (but with discussion).
That's not what he said; you're generalizing.. He didn't mention trolls at all, so the suggestion that RK is a troll is entirely yours.
Ec