Admittedly, I would have jumped on the bandwagon for his banning when I had my first RK experience. RK has called me a few choice things in the past, but I been discovering that RK is an essential part of the Wiki community since his edit wars consistently yield the kind of synthesis that we want: quality, neutrality, and a unique perspective that highlights what Wiki can offer that other sourcebooks cannot.
We should disregard the mountain of grievances we have against him, and accept him as an eloquent, forceful representative of a significant share of hard-liners on the pro-Israel side, although I would certainly favor banning if there were no counterweight. Since these are mass-based struggles, there might be a substantive benefit to allowing partisans to engage in struggle and yield syntheses, in that we might be better able to deal with the role of public opinion, and political mobilization.
Actually, Ive been noticing that Wikipedias have been doing a better job of conveying how the two sides see this conflict than the academic literature and media articles (Reuters, NY Times, BBC, AP usually) that I usually read.
All academic journals, sourcebooks, and media outlets have their strengths and weaknesses when weighed against each other. And Wiki offers a unique perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute made possible by the dynamics of RK and his enemies. Nothing else available online is going to be synthesis of material written by- and also edited by - such a diverse group of perspectives (the online medium makes it possible there might be violence if this group were in the same room!). The articles convey all facets of reality, being products themselves of an actually Israeli-Palestinian proxy battle.
As a disclaimer, as the son of Holocaust survivors Ill state my solidarity with RKs passions for a strong, secure state of Israel. However, my views on his conception of Arab culture are closer to the late Edward Said than Daniel Pipes. As a historian, I find myself cringing, and often gasping with disbelief, when reading RKs tracts on the Palestinians, Arabs, or Islam.
Perhaps I can relate to RKs mentality better than most, but Ive wedded a strong rebuke of RKs paranoia, obnoxiousness, and bully tactics to a defense of the end result.
_________________________________________________________________ Get McAfee virus scanning and cleaning of incoming attachments. Get Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
--- Abe Sokolov abesokolov@hotmail.com wrote:
Admittedly, I would have jumped on the bandwagon for his banning when I had my first RK experience. RK has called me a few choice things in the past, but I been discovering that RK is an essential part of the Wiki community since his edit wars consistently yield the kind of synthesis that we want: quality, neutrality, and a unique perspective that highlights what Wiki can offer that other sourcebooks cannot.
We should disregard the mountain of grievances we have against him, and accept him as an eloquent, forceful representative of a significant share of hard-liners on the pro-Israel side, although I would certainly favor banning if there were no counterweight. Since these are mass-based struggles, there might be a substantive benefit to allowing partisans to engage in struggle and yield syntheses, in that we might be better able to deal with the role of public opinion, and political mobilization.
Actually, I�ve been noticing that Wikipedia�s have been doing a better job of conveying how the two sides see this conflict than the academic literature and media articles (Reuters, NY Times, BBC, AP usually) that I usually read.
I don't usually have that experience of the two sides banancing. I usually find that many of the articles about Israel are either violently for Israel (by RK) or violently against (by Stevertigo). LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
--- Abe Sokolov abesokolov@hotmail.com wrote:
RK is an essential part of the Wiki community since his edit wars consistently yield the kind of synthesis that we want: quality, neutrality, and a unique perspective that highlights what Wiki
At what cost? Consider the costs that some here have mentioned-- lost time, work, and human beings, all just to maintain an "RK" on WP. It's absurd that such artificial supports should exist in the Wikipedia, just because they exist in the international political world.
We should disregard the mountain of grievances we have against him, and accept him as an eloquent, forceful representative of a significant share of hard-liners on the pro-Israel side, although I
would
certainly favor banning if there were no counterweight.
There is no counterweight. I am not here to be RK's counterweight -- I am staunchly moderate. That there are few or no rabid Islamists on Wikipedia is not my doing. I remember even calling one a "Philistine" before I booted him-- admittedly to also illustrate the point that there *is* a very old bias in Western society against Palestinians.
Since these are mass-based struggles, there might be a substantive benefit to allowing
partisans
to engage in struggle and yield syntheses, in that we might be better able to deal with the role of public opinion, and political mobilization.
These are not struggles on issues of "mass" or numbers. They are moral issues, and there is no need to consider the "roles" of public opinion-- we merely have to reflect it and its moral degrees accurately. If we want to be silly, we can even use the Ten Commandments as a baseline-- being common Law to all relevant parties-- and assess each political position and its fidelity to these core principles. It is more NPOV if we can be equal opportunity "offensive" (stating the facts) rather than pretend to be ignorant.
Actually, I�ve been noticing that Wikipedia�s
have
been doing a better job of conveying how the two sides see this conflict than the academic literature and media articles (Reuters, NY Times, BBC, AP usually) that I usually read.
Thats progress at least, but I'd like to see some examples of what you think qualifies, Abe.
Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com wrote:
I don't usually have that experience of the two sides banancing.
You dont exactly live in a politically neutral or balanced environment anyway, LDan ;-) So thats not saying anything.
I usually find that many of the articles about Israel are either violently for Israel (by RK) or violently against (by Stevertigo).
This is uncalled for. How am I "violent"? 'Rude', 'sharp of tongue', and sometimes 'inconsiderate' maybe-- but not "violent." ( Now I know how Ed Said felt when people accused him of an "act of violence" when all he was doing was throwing a rock or two. ) Your adjective is inappropriate-- if I were RK, I would have called it "anti-{{insertMyTribeWhateverThatIs}}" and slanderous.
Lets get one thing clear: "RK" used his ethnicity (which coincidentally is that of others here ) as a cloak to hide his *personal *insecurity. Whether this insecurity is understandable or relatable or not, by his fellow Jews is irrelevant. That "feeling" of insecurity that resulted in his "violence" ( ill will toward others ) is *not to be confused with NPOV/POV issues, and certainly is *not to be an excuse for his behaviour, which even Vicki ought to admit was over the line.
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com