Utter contempt for the integrity of Wikipedia.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Hello all [mailto:wikipedian51@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 03:39 PM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Conflict of Interest and lobbyists for foreign governments
The Hasbara Fellowship program is a project of the Israeli Foreign Ministry which "educates and trains university students to be effective pro-Israel activists". The program essentially pays people to engage in promoting Israel's point of view online.
Hasbara has said the following about wikipedia:
http://www.israelactivism.com/index.php?mode=newsletter#article11 http://www.israelactivism.com/index.php?mode=newsletter#article11
Everyone knows about Wikipedia, a place to go to get the 'real' scoop. How often do you use Wikipedia to look up subjects you know little about? Now imagine how often other people use Wikipedia to look up subjects related to Israel.
Wikipedia is not an objective resource but rather an online encyclopedia that any one can edit. The result is a website that is in large part is controlled by 'intellectuals' who seek re-write the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. These authors have systematically yet subtly rewritten key passages of thousands of Wikipedia entries to portray Israel in a negative light.
You have the opportunity to stop this dangerous trend! If you are interested in joining a team of Wikipedians to make sure Israel is presented fairly and accurately, please contact director@israelactivism.com for details!
This looks like a concerted and funded effort to push a particular political POV on wikipedia. If there is a "team" of people paid to edit Israel related articles in a POV fashion shouldn't they be required to declare their Conflict of Interest? Should employees or other individuals paid by Aish HaTorah, which runs the Hasbara Fellowships program on behalf of and with funding by Israel's Foreign Ministry, have to declare their COI if they edit Israel related articles? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Absolutely they must disclose such a COI.
I say indef block any IP's originating from the institution in question. A stated goal of trying to influence Wikipedia in a POV way would get any individual anon blocked, so why not a pseudo-governmental organization?
On 7/29/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Utter contempt for the integrity of Wikipedia.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Hello all [mailto:wikipedian51@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2007 03:39 PM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Conflict of Interest and lobbyists for foreign
governments
The Hasbara Fellowship program is a project of the Israeli Foreign
Ministry
which "educates and trains university students to be effective pro-Israel activists". The program essentially pays people to engage in promoting Israel's point of view online.
Hasbara has said the following about wikipedia:
http://www.israelactivism.com/index.php?mode=newsletter#article11 http://www.israelactivism.com/index.php?mode=newsletter#article11
Everyone knows about Wikipedia, a place to go to get the 'real' scoop.
How
often do you use Wikipedia to look up subjects you know little about? Now imagine how often other people use Wikipedia to look up subjects related
to
Israel.
Wikipedia is not an objective resource but rather an online encyclopedia that any one can edit. The result is a website that is in large part is controlled by 'intellectuals' who seek re-write the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. These authors have systematically yet subtly rewritten key passages of thousands of Wikipedia entries to portray
Israel
in a negative light.
You have the opportunity to stop this dangerous trend! If you are interested in joining a team of Wikipedians to make sure Israel is
presented
fairly and accurately, please contact director@israelactivism.com for details!
This looks like a concerted and funded effort to push a particular
political
POV on wikipedia. If there is a "team" of people paid to edit Israel
related
articles in a POV fashion shouldn't they be required to declare their Conflict of Interest? Should employees or other individuals paid by Aish HaTorah, which runs the Hasbara Fellowships program on behalf of and with funding by Israel's Foreign Ministry, have to declare their COI if they
edit
Israel related articles? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I say indef block any IP's originating from the institution in question. A stated goal of trying to influence Wikipedia in a POV way would get any individual anon blocked, so why not a pseudo-governmental organization?
Technically, their stated goal is to present Israel fairly and accurately (ie. NPOV). Their blatant COI means they are unlikely to do that very well, but they aren't openly intending to introduce a POV.
On 7/29/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I say indef block any IP's originating from the institution in question. A stated goal of trying to influence Wikipedia in a POV way would get any individual anon blocked, so why not a pseudo-governmental organization?
Technically, their stated goal is to present Israel fairly and accurately (ie. NPOV). Their blatant COI means they are unlikely to do that very well, but they aren't openly intending to introduce a POV.
Actually there are all sorts of nationalistic interests alive and functioning quite well on Wikipedia--how arrogant of the Israels to want to join the crowd?
Most every Pashtun article on Wikipedia is written from a Persian-nationalistic perspective, and attempts to change that run one afoul of those largely responsible for supporting this silliness--although these editors are falling by the wayside one by one, because, generally nationalists have one-tracked minds. In the meantime, there are some very poor, rather silly, and some very unique (okay, POV) articles on the history of Afghanistan and Pashtuns, that have very little to do with anything but the Persian declaration that that section of the world is theirs, always has been, and always will be. The Brits would have liked that to have been true about 100 years ago, admitedly. Ironically much of the information is copied en masse from the bery Brittish biased Encyclopedia Iranica, which, when challenged, is met with the rallying cry of nationalism, "scholarly source, scholarly source."
So, how dare the Israels do on Wikipedia what every one else is doing, or how dare they announce that they are doing it when everyone else is so cleverly hiding it?
KP
K P wrote:
So, how dare the Israels do on Wikipedia what every one else is doing, or how dare they announce that they are doing it when everyone else is so cleverly hiding it?
It's wrong for other groups to push POVs on Wikipedia too, of course, whether they try to hide it or not. It's silly to suggest otherwise.
There isn't a double standard at work here. The reason Israelis in particular are being discussed right now is because an Israeli organization just publicly stated their intent to push their POV in an organized manner. Find an example of a similar statement by some other group and start a thread about it and I'm sure you'll see many of the same reactions.
Well said Bryan.
KP, just because you have things to bitch about in Pashtun articles doesn't mean that governments encouraging the subversion of Wikipedia'a neutrality with paid sponsorship is acceptable. To use the AFD example: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse for this to go on.
On 7/29/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/29/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I say indef block any IP's originating from the institution in
question. A
stated goal of trying to influence Wikipedia in a POV way would get
any
individual anon blocked, so why not a pseudo-governmental
organization?
Technically, their stated goal is to present Israel fairly and accurately (ie. NPOV). Their blatant COI means they are unlikely to do that very well, but they aren't openly intending to introduce a POV.
Actually there are all sorts of nationalistic interests alive and functioning quite well on Wikipedia--how arrogant of the Israels to want to join the crowd?
Most every Pashtun article on Wikipedia is written from a Persian-nationalistic perspective, and attempts to change that run one afoul of those largely responsible for supporting this silliness--although these editors are falling by the wayside one by one, because, generally nationalists have one-tracked minds. In the meantime, there are some very poor, rather silly, and some very unique (okay, POV) articles on the history of Afghanistan and Pashtuns, that have very little to do with anything but the Persian declaration that that section of the world is theirs, always has been, and always will be. The Brits would have liked that to have been true about 100 years ago, admitedly. Ironically much of the information is copied en masse from the bery Brittish biased Encyclopedia Iranica, which, when challenged, is met with the rallying cry of nationalism, "scholarly source, scholarly source."
So, how dare the Israels do on Wikipedia what every one else is doing, or how dare they announce that they are doing it when everyone else is so cleverly hiding it?
KP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Two wrongs don't make a right.
The point is there is a concerted effort by an organization funded by the Israeli foreign ministry to manipulate wikipedia.
Moreover, when Hasbara Fellowships asks people to "join the team" I read it as indicating not that a team of POV-pushers is about to descend on wikipedia but that they are already here and have been for some time.
Anyone even casually familiar with articles on Israel, the Palestinians and their conflict has seen concerted POV pushing and edit warring by a small group of editors and it's completely logical to assume that some of these editors are with Hasbara or some other pro-Israel lobby group.
It's also quite logical to assume that a more skilled lobbyist trying to manipulate and influence wikipedia would learn how to play the game and rise to a position such as Admin or higher and use his or her position to his employer's advantage.
The clear leader of the pro-Israel group of editors on Wikipeida is Jayjg, an admin who has been "reminded" or "admonished" on several occasions for edit warring and an admin who recently got another editor, PalestineRemembered, banned based on a false accusation.
As a security precaution shouldn't we be asking Jayjg to state whether or not he is associated with Hasbara Fellowships, AishHatora, AIPAC or any other pro-Israel lobby group? Given his track record of edit warring shouldn't someone review his use of Oversight and CheckUser to ensure he hasn't used these features for political reasons? Should someone who has been warned, "reminded" or admonished on several occasions for edit warring continue to hold these administrative positions indefinitely without review?
If it comes out that Jayjg is Hasbara Fellowship's "team leader" on wikipedia or is associated in some way with an organized and funded lobby it will be yet another scandal of essjay like proportions that will shake confidence in Wikipedia. We should take preventative measures now rather than look the other way and let the media uncover our skeletons for us.
On 7/29/07, Meg Ireland megireland99@gmail.com wrote:
Two wrongs don't make a right.
-- http://www.myspace.com/meg99
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/2/07, Hello all wikipedian51@gmail.com wrote:
The point is there is a concerted effort by an organization funded by the Israeli foreign ministry to manipulate wikipedia.
Moreover, when Hasbara Fellowships asks people to "join the team" I read it as indicating not that a team of POV-pushers is about to descend on wikipedia but that they are already here and have been for some time.
Anyone even casually familiar with articles on Israel, the Palestinians and their conflict has seen concerted POV pushing and edit warring by a small group of editors and it's completely logical to assume that some of these editors are with Hasbara or some other pro-Israel lobby group.
It's also quite logical to assume that a more skilled lobbyist trying to manipulate and influence wikipedia would learn how to play the game and rise to a position such as Admin or higher and use his or her position to his employer's advantage.
The clear leader of the pro-Israel group of editors on Wikipeida is Jayjg, an admin who has been "reminded" or "admonished" on several occasions for edit warring and an admin who recently got another editor, PalestineRemembered, banned based on a false accusation.
As a security precaution shouldn't we be asking Jayjg to state whether or not he is associated with Hasbara Fellowships, AishHatora, AIPAC or any other pro-Israel lobby group? Given his track record of edit warring shouldn't someone review his use of Oversight and CheckUser to ensure he hasn't used these features for political reasons? Should someone who has been warned, "reminded" or admonished on several occasions for edit warring continue to hold these administrative positions indefinitely without review?
If it comes out that Jayjg is Hasbara Fellowship's "team leader" on wikipedia or is associated in some way with an organized and funded lobby it will be yet another scandal of essjay like proportions that will shake confidence in Wikipedia. We should take preventative measures now rather than look the other way and let the media uncover our skeletons for us.
Hi User:Shia1. I'm not sure how long you plan to keep flogging this conspiracy theory; you've been trying to get someone to bite since late June, I believe. For the record, I'm not associated with or paid by any pro-Israel lobby group, including Hasbara fellowships.
Nope, Jayjg is a rabid editor on Israeli subjects all on his own. No paid lobby is required.
On 8/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Hello all wikipedian51@gmail.com wrote:
The point is there is a concerted effort by an organization funded by
the
Israeli foreign ministry to manipulate wikipedia.
Moreover, when Hasbara Fellowships asks people to "join the team" I read
it
as indicating not that a team of POV-pushers is about to descend on wikipedia but that they are already here and have been for some time.
Anyone even casually familiar with articles on Israel, the Palestinians
and
their conflict has seen concerted POV pushing and edit warring by a
small
group of editors and it's completely logical to assume that some of
these
editors are with Hasbara or some other pro-Israel lobby group.
It's also quite logical to assume that a more skilled lobbyist trying to manipulate and influence wikipedia would learn how to play the game and
rise
to a position such as Admin or higher and use his or her position to his employer's advantage.
The clear leader of the pro-Israel group of editors on Wikipeida is
Jayjg,
an admin who has been "reminded" or "admonished" on several occasions
for
edit warring and an admin who recently got another editor, PalestineRemembered, banned based on a false accusation.
As a security precaution shouldn't we be asking Jayjg to state whether
or
not he is associated with Hasbara Fellowships, AishHatora, AIPAC or any other pro-Israel lobby group? Given his track record of edit warring shouldn't someone review his use of Oversight and CheckUser to ensure he hasn't used these features for political reasons? Should someone who has been warned, "reminded" or admonished on several occasions for edit
warring
continue to hold these administrative positions indefinitely without
review?
If it comes out that Jayjg is Hasbara Fellowship's "team leader" on wikipedia or is associated in some way with an organized and funded
lobby it
will be yet another scandal of essjay like proportions that will shake confidence in Wikipedia. We should take preventative measures now rather than look the other way and let the media uncover our skeletons for us.
Hi User:Shia1. I'm not sure how long you plan to keep flogging this conspiracy theory; you've been trying to get someone to bite since late June, I believe. For the record, I'm not associated with or paid by any pro-Israel lobby group, including Hasbara fellowships.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
This seems like a particularly unwarranted personal attack; I'm surprised it wasn't moderated.
On 8/2/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Nope, Jayjg is a rabid editor on Israeli subjects all on his own. No paid lobby is required.
On 8/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Hello all wikipedian51@gmail.com wrote:
The point is there is a concerted effort by an organization funded by
the
Israeli foreign ministry to manipulate wikipedia.
Moreover, when Hasbara Fellowships asks people to "join the team" I read
it
as indicating not that a team of POV-pushers is about to descend on wikipedia but that they are already here and have been for some time.
Anyone even casually familiar with articles on Israel, the Palestinians
and
their conflict has seen concerted POV pushing and edit warring by a
small
group of editors and it's completely logical to assume that some of
these
editors are with Hasbara or some other pro-Israel lobby group.
It's also quite logical to assume that a more skilled lobbyist trying to manipulate and influence wikipedia would learn how to play the game and
rise
to a position such as Admin or higher and use his or her position to his employer's advantage.
The clear leader of the pro-Israel group of editors on Wikipeida is
Jayjg,
an admin who has been "reminded" or "admonished" on several occasions
for
edit warring and an admin who recently got another editor, PalestineRemembered, banned based on a false accusation.
As a security precaution shouldn't we be asking Jayjg to state whether
or
not he is associated with Hasbara Fellowships, AishHatora, AIPAC or any other pro-Israel lobby group? Given his track record of edit warring shouldn't someone review his use of Oversight and CheckUser to ensure he hasn't used these features for political reasons? Should someone who has been warned, "reminded" or admonished on several occasions for edit
warring
continue to hold these administrative positions indefinitely without
review?
If it comes out that Jayjg is Hasbara Fellowship's "team leader" on wikipedia or is associated in some way with an organized and funded
lobby it
will be yet another scandal of essjay like proportions that will shake confidence in Wikipedia. We should take preventative measures now rather than look the other way and let the media uncover our skeletons for us.
Hi User:Shia1. I'm not sure how long you plan to keep flogging this conspiracy theory; you've been trying to get someone to bite since late June, I believe. For the record, I'm not associated with or paid by any pro-Israel lobby group, including Hasbara fellowships.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Please stop playing the aggrieved victim, Jay. You've been a strongly partisan editor on pages relating to Israel for quite some time, and you've played a prominent role in the near-complete degeneration of civility on the pages in question. Protestations of innocence aren't going to fool anyone, at this stage.
CJ
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
This seems like a particularly unwarranted personal attack; I'm surprised it wasn't moderated.
On 8/2/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Nope, Jayjg is a rabid editor on Israeli subjects all on his own. No
paid
lobby is required.
On 8/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Hello all wikipedian51@gmail.com wrote:
The point is there is a concerted effort by an organization funded
by
the
Israeli foreign ministry to manipulate wikipedia.
Moreover, when Hasbara Fellowships asks people to "join the team" I
read
it
as indicating not that a team of POV-pushers is about to descend on wikipedia but that they are already here and have been for some
time.
Anyone even casually familiar with articles on Israel, the
Palestinians
and
their conflict has seen concerted POV pushing and edit warring by a
small
group of editors and it's completely logical to assume that some of
these
editors are with Hasbara or some other pro-Israel lobby group.
It's also quite logical to assume that a more skilled lobbyist
trying to
manipulate and influence wikipedia would learn how to play the game
and
rise
to a position such as Admin or higher and use his or her position to
his
employer's advantage.
The clear leader of the pro-Israel group of editors on Wikipeida is
Jayjg,
an admin who has been "reminded" or "admonished" on several
occasions
for
edit warring and an admin who recently got another editor, PalestineRemembered, banned based on a false accusation.
As a security precaution shouldn't we be asking Jayjg to state
whether
or
not he is associated with Hasbara Fellowships, AishHatora, AIPAC or
any
other pro-Israel lobby group? Given his track record of edit warring shouldn't someone review his use of Oversight and CheckUser to
ensure he
hasn't used these features for political reasons? Should someone who
has
been warned, "reminded" or admonished on several occasions for edit
warring
continue to hold these administrative positions indefinitely without
review?
If it comes out that Jayjg is Hasbara Fellowship's "team leader" on wikipedia or is associated in some way with an organized and funded
lobby it
will be yet another scandal of essjay like proportions that will
shake
confidence in Wikipedia. We should take preventative measures now
rather
than look the other way and let the media uncover our skeletons for
us.
Hi User:Shia1. I'm not sure how long you plan to keep flogging this conspiracy theory; you've been trying to get someone to bite since late June, I believe. For the record, I'm not associated with or paid by any pro-Israel lobby group, including Hasbara fellowships.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, CJCurrie, I know your opinion, and in my opinion you've been doing pretty much exactly the same, including "playing a prominent role in the near-complete degeneration of civility on the pages in question." But where do you imagine these opinions allow someone to call someone else on the list a "rabid editor"?
On 8/2/07, C. Currie coreyjcurrie@gmail.com wrote:
Please stop playing the aggrieved victim, Jay. You've been a strongly partisan editor on pages relating to Israel for quite some time, and you've played a prominent role in the near-complete degeneration of civility on the pages in question. Protestations of innocence aren't going to fool anyone, at this stage.
CJ
On 8/2/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
This seems like a particularly unwarranted personal attack; I'm surprised it wasn't moderated.
On 8/2/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Nope, Jayjg is a rabid editor on Israeli subjects all on his own. No
paid
lobby is required.
On 8/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Hello all wikipedian51@gmail.com wrote:
The point is there is a concerted effort by an organization funded
by
the
Israeli foreign ministry to manipulate wikipedia.
Moreover, when Hasbara Fellowships asks people to "join the team" I
read
it
as indicating not that a team of POV-pushers is about to descend on wikipedia but that they are already here and have been for some
time.
Anyone even casually familiar with articles on Israel, the
Palestinians
and
their conflict has seen concerted POV pushing and edit warring by a
small
group of editors and it's completely logical to assume that some of
these
editors are with Hasbara or some other pro-Israel lobby group.
It's also quite logical to assume that a more skilled lobbyist
trying to
manipulate and influence wikipedia would learn how to play the game
and
rise
to a position such as Admin or higher and use his or her position to
his
employer's advantage.
The clear leader of the pro-Israel group of editors on Wikipeida is
Jayjg,
an admin who has been "reminded" or "admonished" on several
occasions
for
edit warring and an admin who recently got another editor, PalestineRemembered, banned based on a false accusation.
As a security precaution shouldn't we be asking Jayjg to state
whether
or
not he is associated with Hasbara Fellowships, AishHatora, AIPAC or
any
other pro-Israel lobby group? Given his track record of edit warring shouldn't someone review his use of Oversight and CheckUser to
ensure he
hasn't used these features for political reasons? Should someone who
has
been warned, "reminded" or admonished on several occasions for edit
warring
continue to hold these administrative positions indefinitely without
review?
If it comes out that Jayjg is Hasbara Fellowship's "team leader" on wikipedia or is associated in some way with an organized and funded
lobby it
will be yet another scandal of essjay like proportions that will
shake
confidence in Wikipedia. We should take preventative measures now
rather
than look the other way and let the media uncover our skeletons for
us.
Hi User:Shia1. I'm not sure how long you plan to keep flogging this conspiracy theory; you've been trying to get someone to bite since late June, I believe. For the record, I'm not associated with or paid by any pro-Israel lobby group, including Hasbara fellowships.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
jayjg schrieb:
Hi User:Shia1. I'm not sure how long you plan to keep flogging this conspiracy theory; you've been trying to get someone to bite since late June, I believe. For the record, I'm not associated with or paid by any pro-Israel lobby group, including Hasbara fellowships.
History reveals how "fair and balanced" you are: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/...
There are obvious problems in Wikipedia, which need to get fixed: http://icssa.org/article_detail_parse.php?a_id=416 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Counter...
Removing administrator status from POV-pushers could be a start.
br
Removing administrator status from POV-pushers could be a start.
"rabid editing" as I correctly characterized Jayjg's edits ("extreme or fanatical support of or belief in something), especially to Israeli and Jewish subjects, is not directly analogous to bad faith POV-pushing. I'm sure Jayjg thinks he is improving Wikipedia, for Wikipedia's sake and not someone else's, when he charges about like an angry mastodon. My comment concerning his reckless editing does not mean I think he is a cabalistic POV-pusher. As perhaps was natural, Jayjg didn't get that in my previous comment I really meant all of my statement, and the positive half he missed was that I said he isn't some secret Israeli wiki-agent. He's just a fanatical editor. And frankly, though I disapprove of much of his behavior, I haven't personally seen evidence to suggest that his content disputes mean he should be stripped of sysop powers. Admins aren't summarily forbidden from mixing it up as content contributors, just from abusing admin powers to get their way.
On 8/2/07, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
jayjg schrieb:
Hi User:Shia1. I'm not sure how long you plan to keep flogging this conspiracy theory; you've been trying to get someone to bite since late June, I believe. For the record, I'm not associated with or paid by any pro-Israel lobby group, including Hasbara fellowships.
History reveals how "fair and balanced" you are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/...
There are obvious problems in Wikipedia, which need to get fixed: http://icssa.org/article_detail_parse.php?a_id=416
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Counter...
Removing administrator status from POV-pushers could be a start.
br
Raphael
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/2/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Admins aren't summarily forbidden from mixing it up as content contributors, just from abusing admin powers to get their way.
Right.
If there was any evidence of that, then AN/I cases with proper teeth in them, or Arbcom cases, would have been filed by now.
Sliming people on wikien-l is unfortunately often the last resort of those caught in a content dispute and unable to gain unfair advantage in other manners.
Steven Walling schrieb:
Removing administrator status from POV-pushers could be a start.
"rabid editing" as I correctly characterized Jayjg's edits ("extreme or fanatical support of or belief in something), especially to Israeli and Jewish subjects, is not directly analogous to bad faith POV-pushing. I'm sure Jayjg thinks he is improving Wikipedia, for Wikipedia's sake and not someone else's, when he charges about like an angry mastodon. My comment concerning his reckless editing does not mean I think he is a cabalistic POV-pusher.
I've never been an admin, and I don't want to judge Jayjg personally, but it seems that other people have/had a different view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/FuelWagon_v....
Anyway ... it seems to me, that some WP administrators have developed some kind of elitist group-think, which lets them more readily defend their fellow admins against the ordinary WP "(l)user". Sociologists might be able to explain where that may come from. It has a negativ effect on WP though.
br
On 8/3/07, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Steven Walling schrieb:
Removing administrator status from POV-pushers could be a start.
"rabid editing" as I correctly characterized Jayjg's edits ("extreme or fanatical support of or belief in something), especially to Israeli and Jewish subjects, is not directly analogous to bad faith POV-pushing. I'm sure Jayjg thinks he is improving Wikipedia, for Wikipedia's sake and not someone else's, when he charges about like an angry mastodon. My comment concerning his reckless editing does not mean I think he is a cabalistic POV-pusher.
I've never been an admin, and I don't want to judge Jayjg personally,
Actually, you've been doing just that.
but it seems that other people have/had a different view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/FuelWagon_v....
Wow, you found a workshop section created two years ago by an editor who ended up getting banned.
You're proving the opposite of the point you are trying to prove.
jayjg schrieb:
On 8/3/07, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Steven Walling schrieb:
Removing administrator status from POV-pushers could be a start.
"rabid editing" as I correctly characterized Jayjg's edits ("extreme or fanatical support of or belief in something), especially to Israeli and Jewish subjects, is not directly analogous to bad faith POV-pushing. I'm sure Jayjg thinks he is improving Wikipedia, for Wikipedia's sake and not someone else's, when he charges about like an angry mastodon. My comment concerning his reckless editing does not mean I think he is a cabalistic POV-pusher.
I've never been an admin, and I don't want to judge Jayjg personally,
Actually, you've been doing just that.
I'd rather like to discuss the "meta"-topic (admin abuse).
but it seems that other people have/had a different view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/FuelWagon_v....
Wow, you found a workshop section created two years ago by an editor who ended up getting banned.
You're proving the opposite of the point you are trying to prove.
I don't think so, as the RfA is remarkably missing any kind of admin self-criticism. Banning a user is the decision of admins. It doesn't necessarily mean that, anything that person said is invalid and some kind of "noise" we are not supposed to think about.
On 8/2/07, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
jayjg schrieb:
Hi User:Shia1. I'm not sure how long you plan to keep flogging this conspiracy theory; you've been trying to get someone to bite since late June, I believe. For the record, I'm not associated with or paid by any pro-Israel lobby group, including Hasbara fellowships.
History reveals how "fair and balanced" you are: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/...
There are obvious problems in Wikipedia, which need to get fixed: http://icssa.org/article_detail_parse.php?a_id=416 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Counter...
Two out of context edits are pretty meaningless. Try these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_terrorist_incidents&di... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Relig... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Perse... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Sharon&diff=18605934&... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intifada&diff=prev&oldid=1... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persian_Jews&diff=prev&old... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rehavam_Zeevi&diff=prev&ol... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_Strip&diff=prev&oldid... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Definitions_of_Palestine_and_Pales... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=prev&oldid=246... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Territories_under_Israeli_control&... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_Security_Forces&diff=p... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasser_Arafat&diff=prev&ol... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hebron&diff=23246872&oldid... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_cleansing&diff=prev&... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yasser_Arafat&diff=21021972&am... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baruch_Goldstein&diff=prev&... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tali_Hatuel&diff=prev&oldi... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mossad&diff=19855860&oldid... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_Strip&diff=19728991&o... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands&...
etc.
On 7/29/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Well said Bryan.
KP, just because you have things to bitch about in Pashtun articles doesn't mean that governments encouraging the subversion of Wikipedia'a neutrality with paid sponsorship is acceptable. To use the AFD example: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an excuse for this to go on.
On 7/29/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/29/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I say indef block any IP's originating from the institution in
question. A
stated goal of trying to influence Wikipedia in a POV way would get
any
individual anon blocked, so why not a pseudo-governmental
organization?
Technically, their stated goal is to present Israel fairly and accurately (ie. NPOV). Their blatant COI means they are unlikely to do that very well, but they aren't openly intending to introduce a POV.
Actually there are all sorts of nationalistic interests alive and functioning quite well on Wikipedia--how arrogant of the Israels to want to join the crowd?
Most every Pashtun article on Wikipedia is written from a Persian-nationalistic perspective, and attempts to change that run one afoul of those largely responsible for supporting this silliness--although these editors are falling by the wayside one by one, because, generally nationalists have one-tracked minds. In the meantime, there are some very poor, rather silly, and some very unique (okay, POV) articles on the history of Afghanistan and Pashtuns, that have very little to do with anything but the Persian declaration that that section of the world is theirs, always has been, and always will be. The Brits would have liked that to have been true about 100 years ago, admitedly. Ironically much of the information is copied en masse from the bery Brittish biased Encyclopedia Iranica, which, when challenged, is met with the rallying cry of nationalism, "scholarly source, scholarly source."
So, how dare the Israels do on Wikipedia what every one else is doing, or how dare they announce that they are doing it when everyone else is so cleverly hiding it?
KP
I don't have things to bitch about in Pashtun articles, because there are no real Pashtun articles on Wikipedia.
It's worse than a double standard, that which is known is beaten down, but the undeclared is unworthy of being investigated, or even noticed. I'd rather have the enemy I know than the one every one is too scared to identify.
So Israel acknowledges what every one else is doing, and we crack down on the Israli's declaration, but leave the rest to go on.
KP
K P wrote:
I don't have things to bitch about in Pashtun articles, because there are no real Pashtun articles on Wikipedia.
It's worse than a double standard, that which is known is beaten down, but the undeclared is unworthy of being investigated, or even noticed. I'd rather have the enemy I know than the one every one is too scared to identify.
It's not that it's unworthy to investigate, it's just that it's much harder. You're saying that in the case of Pashtun POV-pushing, there are no identifiable organizations responsible and no specific identifiable articles where it's going on. What are we supposed to do about that?
So Israel acknowledges what every one else is doing, and we crack down on the Israli's declaration, but leave the rest to go on.
If there's Pashtun POV-pushing going on it's not because we _want_ it to go on, it's because we haven't been able to identify and stop it. This Israeli group is making it easy for us in this case, hence the strong reaction.
Perhaps version flagging will make it easier to identify and resolve these sorts of things in much the same way that it's intended to make vandalism easier to contain.
On 7/29/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Actually there are all sorts of nationalistic interests alive and functioning quite well on Wikipedia--how arrogant of the Israels to want to join the crowd?
Most every Pashtun article on Wikipedia is written from a Persian-nationalistic perspective, and attempts to change that run one afoul of those largely responsible for supporting this silliness--although these editors are falling by the wayside one by one, because, generally nationalists have one-tracked minds. In the meantime, there are some very poor, rather silly, and some very unique (okay, POV) articles on the history of Afghanistan and Pashtuns, that have very little to do with anything but the Persian declaration that that section of the world is theirs, always has been, and always will be. The Brits would have liked that to have been true about 100 years ago, admitedly. Ironically much of the information is copied en masse from the bery Brittish biased Encyclopedia Iranica, which, when challenged, is met with the rallying cry of nationalism, "scholarly source, scholarly source."
So, how dare the Israels do on Wikipedia what every one else is doing, or how dare they announce that they are doing it when everyone else is so cleverly hiding it?
KP
So you're arguing that Wikipedia should do nothing if Iran's Foreign Ministry is trying to rewrite articles to its liking?
On 7/29/07, Hello all wikipedian51@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/29/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Actually there are all sorts of nationalistic interests alive and functioning quite well on Wikipedia--how arrogant of the Israels to want to join the crowd?
Most every Pashtun article on Wikipedia is written from a Persian-nationalistic perspective, and attempts to change that run one afoul of those largely responsible for supporting this silliness--although these editors are falling by the wayside one by one, because, generally nationalists have one-tracked minds. In the meantime, there are some very poor, rather silly, and some very unique (okay, POV) articles on the history of Afghanistan and Pashtuns, that have very little to do with anything but the Persian declaration that that section of the world is theirs, always has been, and always will be. The Brits would have liked that to have been true about 100 years ago, admitedly. Ironically much of the information is copied en masse from the bery Brittish biased Encyclopedia Iranica, which, when challenged, is met with the rallying cry of nationalism, "scholarly source, scholarly source."
So, how dare the Israels do on Wikipedia what every one else is doing, or how dare they announce that they are doing it when everyone else is so cleverly hiding it?
KP
So you're arguing that Wikipedia should do nothing if Iran's Foreign Ministry is trying to rewrite articles to its liking?
Well, isn't that what it seems like when Persian rewrite all Pashtun articles to make them the Persianization of Afghanistan on Wikipedia?
There seems to be a mix-up (quite understandable if anyone tried to figure out what Pashtuns are by reading Wikipedia) about Pashtuns. Pashtuns are Afghans, not Persians. It's really only on Wikipedia that Pashtuns are the history of the Persian people.
Well, what are we supposed to do about it? I can't do anything, I'm only one person, and the moment it was realized that I wouldn't accept the Persianization of the history of Afghanistan, I was run out of there. Of course the editor who did most of the running is now banned for something he didn't do, which just makes the whole situation absurd.
I never said anywhere that there are "no identifiable organizations responsible and no specific identifiable articles where it's going on."
It's not Pashtun-POV pushing. But, again, I can understand and see why the confusion is so easy to come by when all of our Pashtun articles have been so heavily Persianized. They do share a lot of history in common, but every person remotely related to the Persian Empire does not have to have every inch of Afghan washed out of him or her, and every word of Afghanistan's history is not one with Persia's.
Afghanistan is not a synonym for Iran. Pashtuns, in spite of Wikipedia, are not Iranians.
But none of this is really the point. The important point is that this goes on not just in the Afghanistan subsumation by the Persian empire, but all over Wikipedia, and without much done about it. That Israel is open about doing it (apparently their being open about it means they're not doing it, so we don't have to actually worry about it), shouldn't be a rallying cry to indignity against Israel for what they're doing, but an opening to why Israel feels necessary to respond to Wikipedia in this manner. And, I believe it is necessary because of the rampant nationalistic POV pushing on Wikipedia.
KP
I can see your point KP.
In the Guitar article, a more correct historical wording in the context of 1500BC would be the "Elamite capital of Susa", yet the article explicitly uses the term Iran (an analogy would be like claiming ancient Troy was the capital of Turkey or that classical Athens was the capital of Greece).
On 7/30/07, Meg Ireland megireland99@gmail.com wrote:
I can see your point KP.
In the Guitar article, a more correct historical wording in the context of 1500BC would be the "Elamite capital of Susa", yet the article explicitly uses the term Iran (an analogy would be like claiming ancient Troy was the capital of Turkey or that classical Athens was the capital of Greece).
Meg,
Thanks for actually looking--doesn't take much effort to catch, once one looks for it. Unfortunately the dearth of knowledge on the related topics in the English-speaking 21st century, makes it hard to see for folks who don't know much about the ancient to modern history of the various empires in the area; but those with some knowledge of the area, and a lack of biases, are rather surprised by what Wikipedia has.
I've only studied some of the middle empires and, of course, modern Pashtun history, and that mostly through family histories, rather than written ones, so I don't have the background and sources for correcting it, although I will one day have the sources, the time, and the patience. There's a lot of Pashtun history that is directly intertwined with Iranian history, and it can be told that way, but when Wikipedia editors create neologisms to invent empires to Persianize all of Afghanistan, it's really absurd. ANd there's no scholarship anywhere outside of Wikipedia that supports it.
Even trying to write the geology of the area editors come in and make up geomorphology and orogenies to nationalize the geology--and I only write about the Iranian geology, which I've studied, not the Afghan, which I've only incidently studied via the tectonic relationships with Iran. So I give up, because there's not a single geological article anywhere supporting the nationalization of Iranian geology, even in the articles written by Iranians, which most of the articles are. Oh, and the Iranians are some of the best and most respected geologists in the world, but their work can't stand on Wikipedia as resources without the uber-nationalization of it--although it stands everywhere else as the well-done resources on a geologically well-studied and important part of the world. It's absurd.
Thanks for looking, Meg.
KP
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I say indef block any IP's originating from the institution in question. A stated goal of trying to influence Wikipedia in a POV way would get any individual anon blocked, so why not a pseudo-governmental organization?
Technically, their stated goal is to present Israel fairly and accurately (ie. NPOV). Their blatant COI means they are unlikely to do that very well, but they aren't openly intending to introduce a POV.
People wih such a FOXy approach to fairness and accuracy have a tendency to believe the rhetoric of their neutrality.
Ec
I've never known a government or foreign ministry to ever say that they were doing otherwise but telling the truth and putting forward their case fairly and accurately. There's a reason why diplomacy is said to be the art of lying for one's country.
There's also a reason why Orwell named the propaganda department in 1984 the "Ministry of Truth" and why the Communists called their newspaper Pravda (Russian for truth).
The point is that a foreign ministry has created paid "fellowships" to promote its version of truth and that one of their stated targets is Wikipedia. Your suggestion that we take this passively because their "stated goal" is to tell the truth isn't credible.
On 7/29/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I say indef block any IP's originating from the institution in question.
A
stated goal of trying to influence Wikipedia in a POV way would get any individual anon blocked, so why not a pseudo-governmental organization?
Technically, their stated goal is to present Israel fairly and accurately (ie. NPOV). Their blatant COI means they are unlikely to do that very well, but they aren't openly intending to introduce a POV.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The point is that a foreign ministry has created paid "fellowships" to promote its version of truth and that one of their stated targets is Wikipedia. Your suggestion that we take this passively because their "stated goal" is to tell the truth isn't credible.
I made no suggestions of any kind. Please don't put words in my mouth.
On 7/30/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The point is that a foreign ministry has created paid "fellowships" to promote its version of truth and that one of their stated targets is Wikipedia. Your suggestion that we take this passively because their "stated goal" is to tell the truth isn't credible.
I made no suggestions of any kind. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I didn't quite say this, but I think this was to me, not to you.
KP
Every national, political, and ethnic group I know of is convinced there is a conspiracy at WP to oppose its views. Editing an objective information source is always going to be like that. Conspicuous pressure groups attract notice and opposition. Open POV is the easiest to see--no reasonable person would approach an article on an Israeli or Palestinian topic without being aware of the possibilities. That people feel bold enough to talk about it in this bald-faced way is just a recognition of our importance, and I see no particular reason for alarm.
On 7/30/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't quite say this, but I think this was to me, not to you.
It was a top-posted reply to my email, so I assume "your" was meant to refer to me.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 7/30/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Every national, political, and ethnic group I know of is convinced there is a conspiracy at WP to oppose its views. Editing an objective information source is always going to be like that. Conspicuous pressure groups attract notice and opposition. Open POV is the easiest to see--no reasonable person would approach an article on an Israeli or Palestinian topic without being aware of the possibilities. That people feel bold enough to talk about it in this bald-faced way is just a recognition of our importance, and I see no particular reason for alarm.
On 7/30/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I didn't quite say this, but I think this was to me, not to you.
It was a top-posted reply to my email, so I assume "your" was meant to refer to me.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
I don't know that it's a conspiracy, although someone else did suggest the Iranian government. But yes, if Wikipedia is and/or becomes an important source of information on the Web, companies, countries, individuals concerned with PR will be discussing openly and clandestinely the use of Wikipedia information.
Conspiracies are always only about spies and cloaks and daggers.
KP
On 30/07/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I say indef block any IP's originating from the institution in question. A stated goal of trying to influence Wikipedia in a POV way would get any individual anon blocked, so why not a pseudo-governmental organization?
Technically, their stated goal is to present Israel fairly and accurately (ie. NPOV). Their blatant COI means they are unlikely to do that very well, but they aren't openly intending to introduce a POV.
In practice, advocacy groups are not really that much of a problem. We get this sort of thing *all the time*. What usually happens is that blind POV pushers make themselves known quite quickly and aren't very effective, and we accumulate new editors who understand what Wikipedia is about and who realise the very best thing to do is to write something NPOV.
Even on the Israel-Palestine articles, we have a core of sensible Wikipedians who may strongly disagree on the issue, but have a clue how to present it.
- d.