: who want to work with you toward a common goal, as opposed : to putting up with the disruptions and distortions and : evasions and downright lies that we get so used to here. : (You want examples? Try Wik or Nico or RK. ...
More off-topic slander. I'm not surprised. I don't even contribute to Wikipedia anymore, ever since many members on this list became actively anti-Semitic. It was bad enough when proven Nazis like Stervertigo, and his cheerleader Martin (MyRedDice) Harper were allowed to push their views with the full support of this list.
It got worse when various list members wrote and telephoned me privately in support, but admitted that they would never speak out here in public because they were afraid of being ganged up on (they were correct.)
It got even worse when your so-called arbitartors publicly demanded that I accept admitted Nazis and work with them. (Such quotes are still archived.) Sane people would see that as obvious Jew-baiting; similarly, demanding that our black contributors work with members of the Ku Klux Klan would be racist black-hating. Yet sadly when this was brought to the attention of this list, none of you mentioned any problem with this.
It got even worse: In recent weeks Steve Rubenstein warned you all about another Jew-hater who was constantly vandalizing Wikipedia and clearly pushing Nazi websites. Yet in response, you refused to ban this person. Outrageously many of you said that you wanted this Nazi's views, and that you wanted to find a way to keep him on as a contributor.
People like you would be (and indeed, are) fired from respectable encyclopedia projects.
Every wonder why so many people leave this project? It has been taken over by leftists, anarchists, anti-science whackos and hatemongers.
To be blunt, as long as you refuse to reform your system, and as long as you allow these people to push hatred and nonsense, Wikipedia will never be respected. It may become popular, as Google hits show, but then again the Nazi-website "JewWatch" is popular as well. Being associated with this kind of popularity is something that I do not want. I should have listed to my colleagues last year, when they told me that they forbade their students from using Wikipedia. They said it was anti-science, anti-Semitic, out of control, and that without empowered moderators it merely created facts by voting.
That is the kind of leftist Stanlinism-type "research" that truly educated peopel abhor. Facts are not created by the consensus of the most radical writers, no matter what the deconstructionists and leftists among you might wish to believe.
While Jimbo's idea of an open-source encyclopedia still is a very good idea, Wikipedia will never be achieve this goal. At best, it will be a good feeder and working sandbox for articles that can be vetted by professionals for a second-level, stable open-source encyclopedia, like Nupedia was supposed to be. But the Wikipedia itself will at best become well-known and infamous...not good.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
Robert wrote:
It got even worse: In recent weeks Steve Rubenstein warned you all about another Jew-hater who was constantly vandalizing Wikipedia and clearly pushing Nazi websites. Yet in response, you refused to ban this person. Outrageously many of you said that you wanted this Nazi's views, and that you wanted to find a way to keep him on as a contributor.
Perhaps you missed it, but Paul Vogel was banned for a year.
As far as banning people for racist views goes, I don't think we can do that. We can't ban people for *any* particular viewpoints. Saying "we don't ban people for their beliefs, except racism, we make an exception for that one" is kind of odd. What about other objectionable beliefs? Should we ban Satanists? A lot of people find Satanism as objectionable as racism. What about Stalinists? There's too many ways to be offended.
Removing inappropriate material that is out of context and improperly labeled is of course okay, especially if it's external links (since our primary business is not a web directory). And banning people for repeatedly inserting links all over the place and refusing to stop is okay too. So we did end up banning him because of his personal attacks, vandalism, and general unwillingness to work with others.
-Mark
It took a while, Robert, but we did ban this guy for one year (I would have banned him indefinitely). I would have banned him (if our policy permited) for his anti-semitisim and systematic point of view editing (just as I would ban you should the opportunity arise for systematic point of view editing, if our policy permitted).
I don't know what we can do about someone who sees anti-Semitism everywhere and thinks he is being persecuted. The problem is that you are a very aggressive editor, constantly pushing your "scientism" point of view, so folks are in fights with you. Perhaps some take cheap shots at you once they learn you are sensitive. Then there are a few actual anti-Semites (I would exclude those who are disturbed by the excesses of Zionism).
As to talking with folks, it slows you down, but generally is at least as productive as writing articles. Your opponents would not be editing the article you are unless they have a common interest in the topic. I think, at least sometimes, great differences in perspective can be bridged or at least understood. Not that I was ever able to do that with you. But, if you were wiling to listen and think about others perspectives I think you might be able to work with some editors with whom you think you can't work with.
Fred
From: Robert rkscience100@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 14:43:29 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's problems
It got even worse: In recent weeks Steve Rubenstein warned you all about another Jew-hater who was constantly vandalizing Wikipedia and clearly pushing Nazi websites. Yet in response, you refused to ban this person. Outrageously many of you said that you wanted this Nazi's views, and that you wanted to find a way to keep him on as a contributor.
On 05/08/04 21:43, Robert wrote:
More off-topic slander. I'm not surprised. I don't even contribute to Wikipedia anymore, ever since many members on this list became actively anti-Semitic. It was bad enough when proven Nazis like Stervertigo, and his cheerleader Martin (MyRedDice) Harper were allowed to push their views with the full support of this list.
I don't know if you can appreciate that this looks like the words of someone off on crack, but it does to me. Perhaps I'm wrong.
It got worse when various list members wrote and telephoned me privately in support, but admitted that they would never speak out here in public because they were afraid of being ganged up on (they were correct.)
Eegh. Send them to me. I've had legal threats from the Church of Scientology for my other hobbies (dealing with the CoS), and pretty much *anything* looks light-duty after you've been through their mill.
It got even worse when your so-called arbitartors publicly demanded that I accept admitted Nazis and work with them. (Such quotes are still archived.) Sane people would see that as obvious Jew-baiting; similarly, demanding that our black contributors work with members of the Ku Klux Klan would be racist black-hating. Yet sadly when this was brought to the attention of this list, none of you mentioned any problem with this.
I swear to God that I tried to work with Paul Vogel. And I'm actually ashamed that I cheered when he was banned for a year.
It got even worse: In recent weeks Steve Rubenstein warned you all about another Jew-hater who was constantly vandalizing Wikipedia and clearly pushing Nazi websites. Yet in response, you refused to ban this person. Outrageously many of you said that you wanted this Nazi's views, and that you wanted to find a way to keep him on as a contributor.
It would have been nice to have had access (not blind acceptance of, but access to) to Vogel's views without his personality.
Every wonder why so many people leave this project? It has been taken over by leftists,
And rightists. (Political partisans in general. I mind Usenet newsgroup aus.politics, which, by the time I gave up on it in 1997, pretty clearly divided not by left or right, but by lucid or frothing.)
anarchists, anti-science whackos and hatemongers.
Mr-Natural-Health's Alternative Medicine project looks entertaining. I'll have to cast a closer editorial eye over it. He looks heavily into rule lawyering. My goodness I love those sort of people.
do not want. I should have listed to my colleagues last year, when they told me that they forbade their students from using Wikipedia. They said it was anti-science, anti-Semitic, out of control, and that without empowered moderators it merely created facts by voting.
I would actually like to hear more about this.
That is the kind of leftist Stanlinism-type "research" that truly educated peopel abhor. Facts are not created by the consensus of the most radical writers, no matter what the deconstructionists and leftists among you might wish to believe.
You appear to have POV against leftists. I'll have you know I read the Guardian and vote Liberal Democrat!
While Jimbo's idea of an open-source encyclopedia still is a very good idea, Wikipedia will never be achieve this goal. At best, it will be a good feeder and working sandbox for articles that can be vetted by professionals for a second-level, stable open-source encyclopedia, like Nupedia was supposed to be. But the Wikipedia itself will at best become well-known and infamous...not good.
The reason the partisan trolls of all stripes are a problem on WP is that this is, in fact, the place, and that this is blindingly obvious. We're writing source material for this century.
(So I'd better get the Australian Indie Rock project together quick smart!)
- d.