Pardon my English; it is not my first language, nor do I speak it often while not online.

While browsing Wikipedia recently, I stumbled across the controversy regarding the editing of Jason Gastrich and his organization. I am not a Wikipedia editor, but I use Wikipedia as a tool for research. As one of my online ventures is SEO, I prefer the format of Wikipedia for finding information quickly, rather than the often irrelevant Google results. Thus, you could say that I am a minor stakeholder in Wikipedia itself. As a person in need of quick access to information, attacks on Wikipedia concern me, but what I read about this recent conflict disturbed me enough to comment on this issue.

As an outside observer who isn't a party to the conflict, I feel that my input on this matter can be valuable to the process as a whole.

I recently spoke with Mr. Gastrich via AOL Instant Messenger, so that I might try and get another opinion on the basis of the dispute. Before doing so, I spent approximately one hour reading various Wikipedia pages related to the matter, as well as some of Mr. Gastrich's own pages concerning himself and his organization. The readings were two days ago, while my conversation occured approximately one hour before this E-Mail was sent.

I shall reproduce the conversation below, as both a source for my analysis, and as a curiosity to those who have a significant stake in the ongoing dispute. The conversation is as follows:

Alexi: Why do you feel the need to turn Wikipedia into a warzone through biased editing, all the while falsely championing your own ego? MrJasonGastrich: have we met? Alexi: No, I'm not a Wikipedia editor even, but I'm incredibly disturbed by the whole situation. Alexi: Pardon my bad english. MrJasonGastrich: Feel free to introduce yourself and maybe we can chat. You obviously don't now me, but how or why do you think you know me? Alexi: Well, I became aware of the whole incident while I was on Wikipedia reading RFCs related to HTTP caching implementations, and stumbled upon the RFC concerning your conduct. Out of curiosity, I decided to read it, and was disturbed by the level of agenda pushing that several parties were throwing into the whole situation. While I don't have the time to contribute to Wikipedia myself (I'm a full time webmaster), I am a little discontent at the notion of people using Wikipedia to wage ideological battles. As an ex-Usenet junkie, I realize that heated debate can be interesting and invigorating, but don't feel that Wikipedia is the place for it. MrJasonGastrich: I understand. Nice to meet you. Alexi: Perhaps you could use the openess afforded by the GFDL to fork the Wikipedia entries which you want to, and set up your own Wiki using the freely available MediaWiki software. MrJasonGastrich: I've considered it and you aren't the first to suggest it, but I don't think I'll do it. Alexi: Why has this been made into a confrontational issue? You've lost a lot of credibility, between the sockpuppets and the overly inflated claims of being a professional webmaster. What is it going to take to end this conflict? Alexi: If you really want my opinion, I'll give it to you. MrJasonGastrich: Why is this any of your business? Your distorted summation of the facts is offensive. Alexi: It is my business because Wikipedia is a resource for all the world, and is supposed to be neutral. Your organization has been working to destroy that neutrality. Wikipedia is much like Jerusalem - unless it can be held by people of differing persuasions, in peace, then in-fighting will completely destroy it. MrJasonGastrich: I disagree with your opinion about my organization and I believe you need to take a much closer look at the facts before judging me as you are. Alexi: As an outside observer, I did look at situation before making an accusation. While what you do may be welcome in Christian circles (I don't know, I'm not a Christian), Wikipedia is not the place for it. Perception is key, and even if what you feel you do is right, the very idea that so many others perceive it as wrong can only hurt your mission of faith. MrJasonGastrich: Since you've launched attacks at me, without all the facts and without even introducing yourself, you've lost all credibility with me. Alexi: If you think I am attacking you, then you need to re- evaluate your whole view of the world. If I chose to attack, which I didn't, I would have entered this chat hell bent on degrading your character with only you as the audience, as opposed to trying to initiate a mature discussion between adults with the intent of finding a mutually beneficial solution. As for credibility, you ought not to cast stones, unless you truly have no credibility issues yourself. The fact that you call yourself a professional webmaster yet obviously don't act like it would not sit well with many others, but I at least chose to give you the benefit of the doubt. Alexi: What I see here is not someone who is spreading the word of Christ through love, but someone subconsciously rejecting their former self through a hyperimplementation of that activity's polar opposite. Maybe you ought to conduct a bit of soul searching and try to really understand why you chose the path you did, and what drives to you interact with others in the way you do.

Initially, I approached Mr. Gastrich from the perspective of an outside observer, who happened to be discontented with Mr Gastrich's use of Wikipedia as a channel to evangelize through. Despite the long and documented history of policy abuses by Mr. Gastrich, as well as my own experience as a webmaster, specifically concerning the fact that Mr. Gastrich paints himself as an Internet professional despite my belief to the contrary, I did not seek to engage him in an ad hominem debate, but rather, try and find a solution beneficial to both parties.

In the course of a less than five kilobyte conversation, Mr. Gastrich managed to convince me of his malicious editing practices. In his fourth message to me, he completely denied the idea that everyone who seeks the open exchange of information has at least some stake in Wikipedia. By making an attack against my very reason for initiating the conversation, which I spelled out to him clearly, he was attempting to discredit my entire position based on my lack of involvement in the dispute. Not only is this a very immature tactic, but also is clearly indicitave of bias, as he felt threatened by an outside opinion of the matter.

By his fifth reply to me, Mr. Gastrich had already become needlessly defensive, and resorted to the commonplace tactic of accusing another party of not knowing the facts, without citing specific examples of flawed statements.

By his sixth reply to me, Mr. Gastrich had already become incivil, and had adopted a defensive position, with intent to marginalize any statement I made.

The way I see this situation is this: were Mr. Gastrich acting with good intentions, he would have no need to become as defensive as he did, both within the framework of Wikipedia, and in external conversations, such as this one. Such defensiveness is not a tactic employed by those acting with good faith, but rather, demonstrates a strong desire to engage all others in heated and incivil debate. As an outside observer, I have thought about this quite a bit, and have come to the conclusion that Mr. Gastrich is acting not as a representative of his faith, with the intention to spread his beliefs to others, but rather, uses his faith and the propogation of it in a self-supporting fashion.

Mr. Gastrich's unchristian past, as evidenced by his own admission and conversion testimonial, leads me to believe that this new found faith is less about faith than it is a rejection of his past. By adopting such an aggressive stance, Mr. Gastrich is using Christianity as a tool for his own internal struggles, and as a way to prove to himself that he no longer wishes to lead the lifestyle that he did. His edits attempting to dishonestly raise the credibility of his education, as well as his vastly overstated claims of webmastering ability lend further credence to this personality assessment. Upon inspection of any of his websites, or his online resume (before he took the page down), Mr. Gastrich comes across as a deceptive individual, with a strong narcissistic personality, and a strong desire to prove himself to others.

In my assessment, Mr. Gastrich has quite a bit of insecurity within his personality, and is unlikely to change his behavior as the result of any external forces. When faced with the possibility of mediation within the framework of Wikipedia, Mr. Gastrich rejected the spirit of the idea, and never once showed any evidence that comprimise would be a possibility. When I suggested that he fork current Wikipedia articles on his own server, so that he and his organization may edit them as he so desires, he quickly dismissed the idea as being without merit, even though, by his admission, others before me had suggested the same idea. With regard to this idea Mr. Gastrich exhibits an irrational set of behaviors; even though, by his own admission, he is technically inclined, and understands how to reach an online audience, as well as believes in the power of the Internet to reach that audience, he chooses to reject the idea of using a Wiki installation on his own server as an extention of his meager online minstries. Instead, he has chosen to fixate his energies on Wikipedia, Usenet, and other mediums, for, in my opinion, the ability to confront others in a vocal and incivil manner.

I hope this external perspective helps, and that this controversy is resolved swiftly, so that Wikipedia can continue its mission of providing a neutral perspective to the world.

Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480

Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail https://www.hushssl.com?l=485