Mark/Delirium wrote:
Much of his frustration
seems to stem from the fact that, even after such difficult consensus
is
forged, the wiki method means that any random POV
pusher can come in
and
mangle the article, which has happened on
[[Anti-Zionism]] on numerous
occasions. Unless a group of knowledgeable people are willing to waste
their time baby-sitting an article, which usually
amounts to
revert-wars
(since rarely are the additions even remotely helpful),
the articles go
rapidly downhill, wasting the effort of the people who
painstakingly
put
together a quality article on a contentious subject.
I'd have to say I agree with that criticism.
I've wasted some time
myself on some of these contentious subjects, only to come back a few
months later and find an abysmally horrid article in its place. Now I
could start over again and try to hammer that article back into a
reasonable state, or I could just revert to my 3-month-old version, or
I
could give up and say, "fine, the crappy article
can stay". And,
increasingly, a lot of people are taking the third option.
-Mark
I think we could introduce a marked base line consensus version of
articles, as introduced by [[user:Gary_D]] for the articles [[Prem
Rawat]] and [[Criticism of Prem Rawat]]. We now have agreed versions,
both by pro-Rawat and anti-Rawat editors (incl. me) and in future
disputes we could simply revert to those versions without giving
extensive explanations. May be we could make this a formal policy and we
give a base line consensus version a formal approval. It comes close to
a peer review. The disadvantage is that changes have to be argued
extensively. I had to write paragraph after paragraph on [[talk:Prem
Rawat]] just to get one sentence removed.
Andries K.D.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 20:27:04 +1000
From: Robin Shannon <robin.shannon(a)gmail.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 15, Issue 14
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Message-ID: <623d733804101003271d6d55e1(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
G'day y'all,
The current ACOTW (Aussie colaboration of the week) is victor chang.
Now victor chang was murdered and because he was famous (in Australia)
had a public funeral, at which his daugter made a funeral speech which
was reprinted in the Sydney Morning Herald. Now this all happened in
1991, which makes it impossible to link to the SMH article containing
the speech (because only paying subscribers can view the archives), so
i would like to put a link in the wikipedia article on victor to a
copy of the speech on wikisource. But i dont know if public speeches
are pd, or if US or AU copyright law applies. Does anyone know the
answer, or know someone who might know?
--
robin.shannon.id.au
This email is licensed under the Creative Commons
Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 20:52:08 +1000
From: Rebecca <misfitgirl(a)gmail.com>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Loosing more of our best contributors
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Message-ID: <530912670410100352460937e7(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Thankfully, Adam isn't leaving altogether - and his continued presence
in Australian-related articles will be much appreciated.
But it's a damned tragedy for Wikipedia that he's giving up dealing
with more controversial topics. He's been one of the most prolific and
skilled contributors we've had - we need as many of the people that
can write an FA in one hit as we can.
This highlights what is, in my view, going to become a real problem.
Dealing with an extremely biased POV-pusher here takes months. It
often destroys an article in the process. And Adam's not the only one
in this position. I've noticed PMA making similar comments, as well as
most of those involved in the long-running LaRouche controversy, which
shows no sign of ending.
It's all well and good to say that all viewpoints are welcome, and
indeed this is true. But by taking it to the extreme, and making it
far too painful to deal with determined POVpushers, I think we'll see
more and more good users walking away from controversial articles, and
even the project as a whole. If they do that, then our articles on
such subjects are going to turn into complete and utter garbage, as
our Lyndon LaRouche article becomes another vessel for original
research (as the ArbCom has already condemned, but not acted upon),
and our Khmer Rouge article becomes an all-out apology. Idealism is
good, but if we push it too far, then we can say goodbye to our
controversial articles being any good at all.
Rebecca (ambi)
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 04:09:55 -0700
From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Loosing more of our best contributors
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <41691883.9070806(a)telus.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Stan Shebs wrote:
Robert wrote:
Adam writes:
[...] When and if Wikipedia adopts a structure that
protects serious editors and prevents fools and fanatics
from sabotaging their work I will return to editing in
other areas. I will be posting a longer piece giving my
views on Wikipedia soon. Adam 14:22, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC
Just to put things in perspective, this is the same Adam Carr
who's been known to call other editors idiots and morons just for
preferring a different picture in an article. Not everybody is cut
out to be a wiki editor; it's good to be knowledgeable, but a lot
of people just can't handle it when their additions are touched
by others, and they get into fight after fight over it.
Some of us take on too much, and participation in controversial can be a
considerable drain on time and emotion. Adam appears to have realized
that. Limiting himself to the stated topics may make him more
productive.
Ec
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 04:31:58 -0700
From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 15, Issue 14
To: Robin Shannon <robin.shannon(a)gmail.com>om>, English Wikipedia
<wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <41691DAE.9070301(a)telus.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Robin Shannon wrote:
G'day y'all,
The current ACOTW (Aussie colaboration of the week) is victor chang.
Now victor chang was murdered and because he was famous (in Australia)
had a public funeral, at which his daugter made a funeral speech which
was reprinted in the Sydney Morning Herald. Now this all happened in
1991, which makes it impossible to link to the SMH article containing
the speech (because only paying subscribers can view the archives), so
i would like to put a link in the wikipedia article on victor to a
copy of the speech on wikisource. But i dont know if public speeches
are pd, or if US or AU copyright law applies. Does anyone know the
answer, or know someone who might know?
Most public speeches are copyright. I believe that US courts have
decided that there is a subsisting copyright in Martin Luther King's "I
have a dream" speech. In the absence of an agreement to the contrary
the daughter rather than the newspaper would own the copyright.
For determining whether something IS copyright the law where the author
had the closest connection would apply, but the courts where the
infringement took place would have jurisdiction.
Ec
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 06:35:21 -0600
From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The real story, Was (Loosing more of our best
contributors)
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <BD8E88A8.7CF5%fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
I was present, and to a certain extent responsible for Adam Carr's
retreat
from Wikipedia. Here is the precipitating incident. It occured during
editing of [[Great Purge]]. I have been actively editing this article,
mostly puting reams of information into the article about how bad it was
and
how unjustified. I was being regularly reverted and was happy to see
Adam
Carr come along and from a similar perspective to mine added to the
article.
[[User:Ruy Lopez]] inserted the following paragraph with the comment,
"(The
Moscow Trials - other theories)":
"Some who think the trials were inherently fair, such as Molotov,
concede
that some of the confessions contain unlikely statements. Molotov said
there
may have been several reasons or motives that this can be attributed to
-
one being if the handful who made doubtful confessions were trying to
undermine the Soviet Union and its government, then making dubious
statements within the confession would cast doubts on their trial.
Molotov
postulated a defendant could invent a story that he collaborated with
foreign agents and party members to undermine the government, and then
those
members would come under suspicion despite doing nothing, while the
false
foreign collaboration charge would be believed as well. Thus, the Soviet
government was also the victim of false confessions. Nonetheless, he
said
the evidence of mostly out-of-power Communist officials conspiring to
make a
power grab during a moment of weakness in the upcoming war was there."
This paragraph, in the context of the article, follows a long
explanation
that there was little or no ground for the purges.
Adam removed it, with the comment, "(this is now progessing towards
being a
respectable article and this ridiculous stalinoid rubbish will not be
allowed)" [[User:Everyking]] put it back in with the comment, "(rv, i
think
it's quite useful to include this pov in the article, don't see why it
wouldn't be). Adam then reverted with the comment, "(because it is a
pathetic attempt to drag absurd red herrings into a factual account of
what
happened, and should not be tolerated by serious editors)".
I then reverted, modifying it somewhat with the comment, "(modify and
restore Stalinist perspective)":
"Some contemporary supporters of Stalin who think the trials were
inherently
fair cite the statements of Molotov who while conceding that some of the
confessions contain unlikely statements, said there may have been
several
reasons or motives that this can be attributed to - one being if the
handful
who made doubtful confessions were trying to undermine the Soviet Union
and
its government, then making dubious statements within the confession
would
cast doubts on their trial. Molotov postulated a defendant could invent
a
story that he collaborated with foreign agents and party members to
undermine the government, and then those members would come under
suspicion
despite doing nothing, while the false foreign collaboration charge
would be
believed as well. Thus, the Soviet government was in his view the
victim of
false confessions. Nonetheless, he said the evidence of mostly
out-of-power
Communist officials conspiring to make a power grab during a moment of
weakness in the upcoming war was there."
(This is not his original version, I added the attributing, "Some
contemporary supporters of Stalin....)
At this point Adam Carr went into a huff, making the comments: "(well if
apparently sensible editors think it is acceptable to include complete
rubbish like this in a serious historical article I am withdrawing from
it.)" and "(as a parting expression of my disgust, i am returning the
article to the crap state it was in before i began attempting to rescue
it.)"
He then left notes on my and Everyking's talk pages and replaced his own
pages with the note Robert references.
Fred
From: Robert <rkscience100(a)yahoo.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 21:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Loosing more of our best contributors
Adam Carr is now gone.
Evry loss like this is a huge blow to the project.
Adam writes:
I have decided to scale back substantially my involvement
in the Wikipedia project, since I no longer believe it is
capable in its present form of achieving its objectives. I
have removed from my watchlist about 300 articles relating
to historical and political subjects outside Australia. I
will no longer edit any such articles or respond to
requests to edit them or comment on them. My edits will be
confined to Australian topics, ancient history and gay
topics. When and if Wikipedia adopts a structure that
protects serious editors and prevents fools and fanatics
from sabotaging their work I will return to editing in
other areas. I will be posting a longer piece giving my
views on Wikipedia soon.
Adam 14:22, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 06:51:57 -0600
From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Loosing more of our best contributors
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <BD8E8C8D.7CF7%fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
In the case [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche]] which
principly involved the editing activities of [[User:Herschelkrustofsky]]
who
had initiated the case, the Arbitration Committee severely restricted
Herschelkrustofsky's and others editing of Wikipedia articles in
relation to
references to Lyndon LaRouche. What we did not agree on was restrictions
of
the [[Lyndon LaRouche]] article itself where after arbitration the
trouble
continued.
Whether we failed in some way is hard to say, we simply did not come to
complete agreement. We did agree to ban Adam Carr for one day for making
personal attacks which did not go down well with some.
Fred
From: "Charles Matthews"
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 09:04:36 +0100
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Loosing more of our best contributors
Phil Sandifer wrote
One of the major factors in Adam's decision
to leave, so far as I can
tell, was the edit warring that took place over articles related to
Lyndon LaRouche.
I can't comment on that. I found in my contact with Adam that he was
abrupt, brusque etc.. I was surprised to find a page dealing with the
Australian Left and its history protected, when I had reason to want
to edit
it.
Clearly a fine WP editor, though. So I'm glad that he has _not_ left,
as
Robert misleadingly implies.
Charles
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 13:09:57 +0100
From: zen19725(a)zen.co.uk (phil hunt)
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Loosing more of our best contributors
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Message-ID: <slrncmi9kl.2pr.zen19725(a)cabalamat.somewhere>
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 04:37:10 -0400, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org>
wrote:
>
I'd have to say I agree with that criticism.
I've wasted some time
myself on some of these contentious subjects, only to come back a few
months later and find an abysmally horrid article in its place. Now I
could start over again and try to hammer that article back into a
reasonable state, or I could just revert to my 3-month-old version, or
I
could give up and say, "fine, the crappy article
can stay". And,
increasingly, a lot of people are taking the third option.
So, what is the fix for this problem?
Probably a number of systems will have to be part of the fix,
including a formal peer review system. But one simple measure might
be to label some articles (those where edit wars and NPOV problems
are common) as "contentious articles", and make it that only
wikipedians of some standing (accounts that have existed for >1
month, with > a number of edits) can edit them.
--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 15, Issue 15
****************************************