Your argument would be compelling were we talking about something like first ammendment free speech rights in the democratic US. But he is not entitled to a "day in court" because wikipedia is not a democracy, it is not a social experiment, it is not a soapbox, a public forum, a commons, a message board, etc., etc. It is an encyclopedia where such a hateful and absurd dogma as Nazi-ism has no place.
For the record, yes, I am in support of oppressing Nazis with every legal means at our disposal, and perhaps some illegal ones if we get really bored. I do not find this incompatible with the support for the free speech rights of Nazis in general, and they can speech all they want on their own message board and their Nazipedia, when and if they ever get it working.
And somehow, I manage to sleep at night just fine.
Gamaliel
Sean Barrett sean at epoptic.org:
With all that righteousness on our side, who could possibly want to waste time on archaic betises like formal charges, due process, the right to confront one's accuser, and similar nonsense?
After all, giving the accused his "day in court" would distinguish us from various disgusting people, like, oh, say, the Nazis.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
It is an encyclopedia where such a hateful and absurd dogma as Nazi-ism has no place.
Go and VfD [[Nazism]], then. However absurd it may be, it is an historically important dogma which needs a careful, detailed and *neutral* treatment in a serious encyclopedia. Furthermore, WP:NPOV states:
"Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view: without bias, representing all majority- and significant-minority views fairly."
The nazi point of view is, at least historically, a significant minority view. By our own "absolute and non negotiable" NPOV policy we should welcome articulate thoughtful nazis* as contributors to ensure this POV is represented fairly.
For the record, yes, I am in support of oppressing Nazis with every legal means at our disposal, and perhaps some illegal ones if we get really bored.
Thank you for that frank statement.
Regards, Haukur
* This may or may not be the empty set.
On Tuesday 23 August 2005 20:20, Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
It is an encyclopedia where such a hateful and absurd dogma as Nazi-ism has no place.
Go and VfD [[Nazism]], then. However absurd it may be, it is an historically important dogma which needs a careful, detailed and *neutral* treatment in a serious encyclopedia. Furthermore, WP:NPOV states:
"Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view: without bias, representing all majority- and significant-minority views fairly."
The nazi point of view is, at least historically, a significant minority view. By our own "absolute and non negotiable" NPOV policy we should welcome articulate thoughtful nazis* as contributors to ensure this POV is represented fairly.
I think that this is a valid and important point.
Furthermore, it often takes people representing opposing points of view to actually achieve true neutrality. It can be a bit of a stormy journey, as editors (often subconsciously) tug the article back and forth between their own viewpoints, but as with a pendulum, eventually the point of neutrality can be found.
I would find it very difficult indeed to write on Nazism from a completely neutral viewpoint, and I certainly commend the efforts of those who have made the effort. Glancing at the article, it seems fine to me, but I am inclined to wonder how much of that is due to my own viewpoint blinding my senses.
Hard as it is to stomach, maybe these hypothetical "articulate and thoughtful Nazis" might actually be able to help improve the encyclopaedia. The question is, will it be worth it?
Jake
Rob wrote:
Your argument would be compelling were we talking about something like first ammendment free speech rights in the democratic US. But he is not entitled to a "day in court" because wikipedia is not a democracy, it is not a social experiment, it is not a soapbox, a public forum, a commons, a message board, etc., etc. It is an encyclopedia where such a hateful and absurd dogma as Nazi-ism has no place.
Yellow card! :-) Officially WP has no position on whether Nazi dogma is hateful or absurd - that is just another POV.
If it is going to become WP policy to pre-ban editors, then we should be at least honest about it and put it up front on the login creation page:
"If you are found to be an adherent of any dogma that any Wikipedia administrator find hateful and/or absurd, your login may be subject to immediate suspension."
I suspect a lot of admins would go for this level of power actually. :-)
Stan
On 8/23/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Yellow card! :-) Officially WP has no position on whether Nazi dogma is hateful or absurd - that is just another POV.
If it is going to become WP policy to pre-ban editors, then we should be at least honest about it and put it up front on the login creation page:
"If you are found to be an adherent of any dogma that any Wikipedia administrator find hateful and/or absurd, your login may be subject to immediate suspension."
I suspect a lot of admins would go for this level of power actually. :-)
Stan
I also suspect more than a few administrators would be pre-banned as well, perhaps even more than half.
Don't think so?
Then consider that many atheists find theist beliefs to be fundamentally absurd, and many theists feel that way about atheists.
To me, pre-banning people is a measure (albeit a small measure) of fascism and prejudice. I prefer we don't join them in their cesspool. Instead, judge them on the merits of their edits.
On 8/24/05, Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/23/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
I suspect a lot of admins would go for this level of power actually. :-)
Stan
I also suspect more than a few administrators would be pre-banned as well, perhaps even more than half.
Don't think so?
Then consider that many atheists find theist beliefs to be fundamentally absurd, and many theists feel that way about atheists.
To me, pre-banning people is a measure (albeit a small measure) of fascism and prejudice. I prefer we don't join them in their cesspool. Instead, judge them on the merits of their edits.
I cannot help but be reminded of the folk who preach tolerance in all things, but whose definitition of tolerance turns out to be "putting up with people I don't mind".
We should be tolerant of all viewpoints, and leave personal issues out of WP. Focus on accuracy, NPOV, reliable sources and so on.