I am very sorry to hear that 172 is considering leaving the project. I am also disturbed by the nature of this discussion.
To be clear, I myself have had frustrating, caustic, and even exasperating arguments over edits with 172 myself. I do not always find his presentation of self to be very congenial, although I am in no position to throw stones. Nevertheless, I am convinced of the integrity of his historical research, and his sincerity in applying the standards of sound scholarship to Wikipedia. while we are not and ought not to be constrained by the limits of conventional encyclopedias and scholarly research, academic historians are people who dedicate the better part of their lives to learning about and understanding events. In my experience they generally hold themselves to high standards, and I think Wikipedia can benefit from those standards and the work of such historians. In these terms 172 has made many valuable contributions.
It disturbs me that some -- I think VV, Fred, Stan and perhaps others -- characterize this as a right/left argument. Even they understand that 172 himself sees it as a scholar/non-scholar argument. I have gone over the articles in question and I think that this is indeed the root issue. Of course, many people in the US (and perhaps other countries) sees the difference between academia and non-academia in terms of politics (scholars are liberal or Marxist), but I do not think this is constructive.
Every Soviet scholar understands that Stalin played a key role in many awful things, involving millions of deaths. I don't think 172 has ever denied this. I do, however, think that he has tried to establish a framework for understanding Soviet history that is grounded in scholarly research and not just Cold War rhetoric. My sense is that anyone who has studied history at the graduate level (although I am sure this is true of many non-scholars too!) has had to slog through now only huge amounts of historical material, but some pretty complicated historical debates. Of course in the process one learns just how bad things were in the Soviet Union, especially during certain periods and for particular groups of people. But academic historians have to go beyond just saying "SU = bad" or "Stalin = bad" to say something more insightful about how and why whatever happened happened. I think 172's contributions have been informed by this concern, and I think some people here systematically misunderstand it.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 5/22/2004
BRAVO!! It's refreshing to hear from someone with an understanding of history!
The gulf between scholar and non-scholar is more important for us than the left/right gulf. The study of history makes that gulf more apparent. It's a matter of taking the best qualities of academia, and bringing them to the common man who has never learned the skill of critical thinking. Early education tends to discredit critical thinking.
Ec
steven l. rubenstein wrote:
I am very sorry to hear that 172 is considering leaving the project. I am also disturbed by the nature of this discussion.
To be clear, I myself have had frustrating, caustic, and even exasperating arguments over edits with 172 myself. I do not always find his presentation of self to be very congenial, although I am in no position to throw stones. Nevertheless, I am convinced of the integrity of his historical research, and his sincerity in applying the standards of sound scholarship to Wikipedia. while we are not and ought not to be constrained by the limits of conventional encyclopedias and scholarly research, academic historians are people who dedicate the better part of their lives to learning about and understanding events. In my experience they generally hold themselves to high standards, and I think Wikipedia can benefit from those standards and the work of such historians. In these terms 172 has made many valuable contributions.
It disturbs me that some -- I think VV, Fred, Stan and perhaps others -- characterize this as a right/left argument. Even they understand that 172 himself sees it as a scholar/non-scholar argument. I have gone over the articles in question and I think that this is indeed the root issue. Of course, many people in the US (and perhaps other countries) sees the difference between academia and non-academia in terms of politics (scholars are liberal or Marxist), but I do not think this is constructive.
Every Soviet scholar understands that Stalin played a key role in many awful things, involving millions of deaths. I don't think 172 has ever denied this. I do, however, think that he has tried to establish a framework for understanding Soviet history that is grounded in scholarly research and not just Cold War rhetoric. My sense is that anyone who has studied history at the graduate level (although I am sure this is true of many non-scholars too!) has had to slog through now only huge amounts of historical material, but some pretty complicated historical debates. Of course in the process one learns just how bad things were in the Soviet Union, especially during certain periods and for particular groups of people. But academic historians have to go beyond just saying "SU = bad" or "Stalin = bad" to say something more insightful about how and why whatever happened happened. I think 172's contributions have been informed by this concern, and I think some people here systematically misunderstand it.
Steve
steven l. rubenstein wrote:
It disturbs me that some -- I think VV, Fred, Stan and perhaps others -- characterize this as a right/left argument. Even they understand that 172 himself sees it as a scholar/non-scholar argument. I have gone over the articles in question and I think that this is indeed the root issue. Of course, many people in the US (and perhaps other countries) sees the difference between academia and non-academia in terms of politics (scholars are liberal or Marxist), but I do not think this is constructive.
It's perhaps unfortunate, but at least in the US, the 20th-century history specialty has become intensely politicized. It shouldn't be too surprising perhaps - there are lots of hints scattered through Wikipedia alone - but I wasn't aware of the full extent of it until researching some of the material about Robert Conquest, both online and in print. Revisionism and post-revisionism for Cold War history is just one facet; you have people being called "court historians" by their colleagues if they present an establishment point of view, you have people shopping around for politically-compatible departments, etc. I think money is a corrupting influence behind the scenes; there are lots of factions with $$$ to give out to historians who lean one way or the other. Public universities have also found themselves in difficult positions, having to choose between a history professor with locally unpopular views and continued funding from the state legislature. It's not just "liberal/Marxist scholars" either, there is a sizeable contingent on the other side too - just think of Daniel Pipes and his crowd.
The unfortunate aspect for us poor Wikipedians is that it can be very hard to know what to make of the dueling experts. Is Conquest more or less authoritative than 172?
Stan
I think we are getting down to the issue here. Academic politics are definitely involved. I find the book, In Denial: Historians, Communism & Espionage, by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, hardcover, ISBN 1893554724 to be useful in sorting these matters out. This book, of course, supports the traditionalist point of view as opposed to the revisionist school.
Fred
From: Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2004 22:20:20 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Can we ban 172 now? And VV too! (in response to Fred Bauder)
steven l. rubenstein wrote:
It disturbs me that some -- I think VV, Fred, Stan and perhaps others -- characterize this as a right/left argument. Even they understand that 172 himself sees it as a scholar/non-scholar argument. I have gone over the articles in question and I think that this is indeed the root issue. Of course, many people in the US (and perhaps other countries) sees the difference between academia and non-academia in terms of politics (scholars are liberal or Marxist), but I do not think this is constructive.
It's perhaps unfortunate, but at least in the US, the 20th-century history specialty has become intensely politicized. It shouldn't be too surprising perhaps - there are lots of hints scattered through Wikipedia alone - but I wasn't aware of the full extent of it until researching some of the material about Robert Conquest, both online and in print. Revisionism and post-revisionism for Cold War history is just one facet; you have people being called "court historians" by their colleagues if they present an establishment point of view, you have people shopping around for politically-compatible departments, etc. I think money is a corrupting influence behind the scenes; there are lots of factions with $$$ to give out to historians who lean one way or the other. Public universities have also found themselves in difficult positions, having to choose between a history professor with locally unpopular views and continued funding from the state legislature. It's not just "liberal/Marxist scholars" either, there is a sizeable contingent on the other side too - just think of Daniel Pipes and his crowd.
The unfortunate aspect for us poor Wikipedians is that it can be very hard to know what to make of the dueling experts. Is Conquest more or less authoritative than 172?
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
I think we are getting down to the issue here. Academic politics are definitely involved. I find the book, In Denial: Historians, Communism & Espionage, by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, hardcover, ISBN 1893554724 to be useful in sorting these matters out. This book, of course, supports the traditionalist point of view as opposed to the revisionist school.
Not all of us are on a campus, and from that outside perspective the terms traditionalist and revisionist seem terribly jargonistic. Mao considered Khrushchev to be a revisionist. Enver Hoxha considered them all to be revisionists, but that didn't help the Albanian people very much. Today's revisionists may be considered to be incorrigible traditionalists by the next generation. Those of us outside the academic loop, both left and right, tend to take independent positions without regard to the internecine squabbling of the academics.
From: Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com The unfortunate aspect for us poor Wikipedians is that it can be very hard to know what to make of the dueling experts. Is Conquest more or less authoritative than 172?
Exactly. What are the criteria for objectivity in history? We know that we can't rely on experts alone. What is generally fed to the public is strongly propagandistic. At the same time the public can be blissfully unaware of the difference between primary and secondary sources.
Our one big advantage that we have is that we don't need to worry about being fired, or having our research budgets cut.
Ec
Too much of the current discussion is centered on 172's alleged shortcomings and not enough on his abilities and contributions.
There is, IMO, not a single other contributor to Wikipedia who has a similar grasp of the Big Picture; no one else has his resources and ability to tackle these big, overarching topics like New Imperialism; no one else has his virtually encyclopedic knowledge of Third World politics and social movements. Abe is not interested the personification of history, trite Big Man bedtime stories, he is interested in analyzing complex, long-term trends in economic and social development, something far more difficult but far more rewarding. Without these kinds of articles, we are basically just a bunch of stamp collectors.
Another thing: regularly he compares what we have with what Encarta has (frequently not to our favor) and these comparisons are always met with a sneer, as though somehow we "open source" types are by definition producing something superior to anything MS can offer. He is right: at times they do a better job and it might be worthwhile asking ourselves why.
Admittedly, 172 doesn't suffer fools gladly and he can be abrasive, particularly with Americans living in tooth-fairy land with respect to US foreign policy. But I've edit his writing a few times and never had ANY problems, probably because I wasn't trying to insert shallow moralistic platitudes. As for the 50+ revision edit wars, I don't condone them, and I think both he and VV should be banned from editing the relevant articles for a month or so.
V.
Viajero wrote:
Too much of the current discussion is centered on 172's alleged shortcomings and not enough on his abilities and contributions.
There is, IMO, not a single other contributor to Wikipedia who has a similar grasp of the Big Picture; no one else has his resources and ability to tackle these big, overarching topics like New Imperialism; no one else has his virtually encyclopedic knowledge of Third World politics and social movements. Abe is not interested the personification of history, trite Big Man bedtime stories, he is interested in analyzing complex, long-term trends in economic and social development, something far more difficult but far more rewarding. Without these kinds of articles, we are basically just a bunch of stamp collectors.
Indeed, I applaud him for making the effort. However, troubled by the obvious leftwing slant (keep in mind that I lean left myself), and wondering if maybe I was just ignorant, I went to the university library and did a paragraph-by-paragraph comparison of various accounts of US history in the 1980s, and various accounts of the Cold War, particularly Gaddis and LaFeber. I found that it was indeed possible to write US history without mentioning trivialities like Nancy Reagan's astrologer (no personification of history? uh-huh), and that it was possible to have accounts of the Cold War that didn't cast every incident as ultimately due to US aggression against the Soviets. I brought these observations up on the relevant talk pages, and got a combination of nonresponsiveness, excuses, and truculence from 172, and in the end I decided I was wasting my time.
Something to think about when sneering at "Americans living in tooth-fairy land" is that for every editor that tries to "fix" an article and is reverted, there are 500 readers that are silently drawing conclusions about WP in general. When article content is different from the actual authorities and doesn't have a good explanation or references (172 is very bad about adding supporting references to these articles), those Americans are not going to become better informed, they're just going to dismiss WP as a whole.
So I feel a little cowardly about not continuing to stand up to 172 on content, but discussion has not proven productive and I'm not going to engage in edit wars. I've thought about trying to recruit more academics; it would be a big win to have Gaddis work over the Cold War article for instance.
Stan