jayjg wrote:
I'm not interested in generalities and slippery slope arguments, though, I'm looking for specifics. When would it be beneficial to Wikipedia to link to WR?
This statement is an interesting example of the rhetorical technique known as "framing." Jayjg is defending a policy that enables BADSITES supporters to impose a censorship rule on every other Wikipedian. The proper question to ask here is, "why would it be beneficial to adopt this sort of censorship?" Instead, however, jayjg has framed it as, "when would it be beneficial to engage in the type of speech that I wish to censor?"
This is exactly equivalent to having someone like Jerry Falwell argue that Hustler Magazine should be banned because, "When would it be beneficial for someone to read Hustler Magazine?" Framing the argument this way turns the discussion into a debate about the merits of Hustler Magazine instead of a debate about censorship. Any discussion about the hated speech then draws howls from the censors about how the speech that they want censored is horrible, horrible, horrible. No decent, right-minded person could ever think otherwise. Anyone who disagrees with the censor is therefore by definitiion indecent and wrong-minded. And the censorship expands from there. We've already seen Slim Virgin put forward the following argument:
The problem with that, Joe, is that some members of the "community" who've been particularly vocal on the linking issue are regular posters to Wikipedia Review.
Note the assumptions here:
(1) Someone who merely posts comments on the censored website is automatically presumed to be behaving inappropriately. Following my analogy, that's the equivalent of "You shouldn't vote for Jimmy Carter because he gave an interview to Playboy magazine."
(2) Such individuals are not true members of the Wikipedia community. They're members of the "community" in quote marks, meaning they're only PRETENDING to be part of the community, as opposed to genuine members like Slim Virgin. Again following my analogy, this is like a fundamentalist minister saying, "Jimmy Carter isn't a true Christian because he gave an interview to Playboy."
By trapping people in this loop of hate speech, you divide the world up into decent versus indecent people, and subsequent debate focuses on how to purge the indecents so that they no longer pollute the "true community." The real debate, however, should begin by discussing the problems with censorship itself.
I'm sure that Daniel Brandt and Wikipedia Review have done some unpleasant things, but the reality is that they're not quite the absolute demons that certain thin-skinned individuals pretend they are. Brandt was also the person who identified the guy who anonymously libeled John Siegenthaler on Wikipedia (for which he was praised by Siegenthaler, a respected journalist). Some people here have claimed that Brandt was also the person who called Essjay's faked credentials to the attention of The New Yorker. I haven't done any checking to confirm whether Brandt actually did that, but even if he did, the truth turned out to be on his side in that instance as well. The polarizing hysteria with which people here have responded to Brandt (calling him a "sociopath" or a "terrorist") is absurd and merely makes it more difficult to deal with him effectively and rationally. The BADSITES policy is an example of that hysteria. It harms Wikipedia by making it harder to discuss Brandt and WR with any precision. Instead of pointing to a specific thread or comment on WR and discussing it specifically, everyone who adheres to BADSITES is forced instead to resort to generalities and loose characterizations of what has been said on the Site Whose URL Must Never Be Mentioned.
In another post, jayjg wrote:
WR is a site that contains "criticism of Wikipedia" in the same way that Jew Watch is a site that contains "Scholarly Collection of Articles on Jewish History" and "Focuses on Professionalism". In the real world these things aren't so gray, though I understand your interest in obfuscating them.
In the interest of clarifying rather than obfuscating, let's note that Wikipedia has a detailed article about Jew Watch, with a link to its home page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_Watch
Personally I find Jew Watch much more offensive than Wikipedia Review, but I would never suggest that all mention of it should be censored from Wikipedia.
-------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/cmd/shop/ custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1107 --------------------------------
On 5/30/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
jayjg wrote:
I'm not interested in generalities and slippery slope arguments, though, I'm looking for specifics. When would it be beneficial to Wikipedia to link to WR?
This statement is an interesting example of the rhetorical technique known as "framing." Jayjg is defending a policy that enables BADSITES supporters to impose a censorship rule on every other Wikipedian.
And your statement is a rather mundane example of the rhetorical technique known as a "straw man argument".
The proper question to ask here is, "why would it be beneficial to adopt this sort of censorship?" Instead, however, jayjg has framed it as, "when would it be beneficial to engage in the type of speech that I wish to censor?"
Dramatic language doesn't strengthen your point. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide people with a venue for free speech, but to create an encyclopedia.
This is exactly equivalent to having someone like Jerry Falwell argue that Hustler Magazine should be banned because, "When would it be beneficial for someone to read Hustler Magazine?" Framing the argument this way turns the discussion into a debate about the merits of Hustler Magazine instead of a debate about censorship. Any discussion about the hated speech then draws howls from the censors about how the speech that they want censored is horrible, horrible, horrible. No decent, right-minded person could ever think otherwise. Anyone who disagrees with the censor is therefore by definitiion indecent and wrong-minded. And the censorship expands from there.
Wow, what astounding rhetoric. "Censorship".
We've already seen Slim Virgin put forward the following argument:
The problem with that, Joe, is that some members of the "community" who've been particularly vocal on the linking issue are regular posters to Wikipedia Review.
Note the assumptions here:
(1) Someone who merely posts comments on the censored website is automatically presumed to be behaving inappropriately. Following my analogy, that's the equivalent of "You shouldn't vote for Jimmy Carter because he gave an interview to Playboy magazine."
(2) Such individuals are not true members of the Wikipedia community. They're members of the "community" in quote marks, meaning they're only PRETENDING to be part of the community, as opposed to genuine members like Slim Virgin. Again following my analogy, this is like a fundamentalist minister saying, "Jimmy Carter isn't a true Christian because he gave an interview to Playboy."
I'm sure you're also going to jump all over the post that divided the Wikipedia community into a few small self-interested, aggressive "admins and others" who were "murdering babies", and "the rest of us"?
By trapping people in this loop of hate speech, you divide the world up into decent versus indecent people, and subsequent debate focuses on how to purge the indecents so that they no longer pollute the "true community."
Sheldon, when rhetoric gets this over-the-top, it's loses all meaning.
The real debate, however, should begin by discussing the problems with censorship itself.
There's a certain kind of editor I run into that likes to fill articles with nonsense, and then when it is removed cry "censorship". They too seem to think that Wikipedia is a playground where they can spew whatever is on their mind, rather than an encyclopedia, with an actual purpose and rules governing what material is acceptable, what is not, rules of behavior, etc.
In another post, jayjg wrote:
WR is a site that contains "criticism of Wikipedia" in the same way that Jew Watch is a site that contains "Scholarly Collection of Articles on Jewish History" and "Focuses on Professionalism". In the real world these things aren't so gray, though I understand your interest in obfuscating them.
In the interest of clarifying rather than obfuscating,
That would be a welcome change.
let's note that Wikipedia has a detailed article about Jew Watch, with a link to its home page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_Watch
Personally I find Jew Watch much more offensive than Wikipedia Review, but I would never suggest that all mention of it should be censored from Wikipedia.
There's that straw man argument again. I've already said that in the unlikely event that WR becomes notable, it would make sense to have a link to the site.
On 5/30/07, Sheldon Rampton sheldon@prwatch.org wrote:
We've already seen Slim Virgin put forward the following argument:
The problem with that, Joe, is that some members of the "community" who've been particularly vocal on the linking issue are regular posters to Wikipedia Review.
Note the assumptions here ...
(1) Someone who merely posts comments on the censored website is automatically presumed to be behaving inappropriately. Following my analogy, that's the equivalent of "You shouldn't vote for Jimmy Carter because he gave an interview to Playboy magazine."
(2) Such individuals are not true members of the Wikipedia community. They're members of the "community" in quote marks ...
By trapping people in this loop of hate speech, you divide the world up into decent versus indecent people ...
Sheldon, I take your point and respect your argument, but please watch the rhetoric. The hate speech is on the sites we're trying to deal with. You can disagree and say we're not dealing with it correctly, but don't try to turn dealing with hate speech as just another example of it.
I do think that people who post supportively to Wikipedia Review *and* (note the "and" in case you misinterpret what I'm saying) who join in the attempt to attack and out individual editors, are arguably not members of the Wikipedia community. I know you'll say that I'm making this a matter of definition, and that it's just my definition, and you'd be right on both scores. But every single description that I've ever read of the word "Wikipedian" precludes that kind of behavior. If that's no longer true, heaven help us.
Sarah