First to Anthere -- I'd have put this on the En list, but really can't
be bothered to subscribe for one post. Sorry about that.
All -- I have written a personal note to KQ to apologize to him for my
part in the recent flame war -- I had certainly not intended with my
first post (which actually offered concrete suggestions for how the
Wagner issue could be resolved and was an attempt to tone down a flame
war on that front. With luck, my removing myself from this arena will
help to draw him back to the list.
As for Larry's moderation suggestion, I think it's a good one. As for
me being a moderator, I appreciate the support, but do not at present
have the time. Also, considering the accusations that Erik has hurled
at me on Ed's talk page (he has repeatedly called me a liar), I cannot
see that my being included as a moderator at this juncture would be for
the good of the project. I realize (and very much appreciate) that many
of you on the list actually do think I contribute fair-minded NPOV
articles and that I am not pushing some kind of pro-Catholic agenda --
and also that you've seen me on many occasions work with others to
fine-tune debated articles into NPOV . I also appreciate your accepting
that I may have some idea about what's going on in my field -- but that
isn't enough, unfortunately. I don't have time to reinvent the wheel,
which includes trying to prove that certain schools of though do not
exist to the extent that others would have wikipedia readers believe.
Proving a negative is nearly impossible, and most of the people labeled
as trolls have based the validity of their arguments on forcing others
to prove them wrong. Best to remain uninvolved with moderation and
preserve the perceived integrity of the project. For the same reason, I
think Ed and Mav might be compromised. Appearances really *are*
important.
This can be a good project. I've enjoyed most of my time here, and am
glad to have worked with many of you. However, were any of my
colleagues to ask me if they should participate, I would at this time
say "absolutely not." I truly believe that the wikipedia is walking a
very fine line between being at best very ordinary (information that
pretty much reiterates what's already out there, and perhaps as
out-dated as the 1911 encyclopedia) and at worst being subverted by a
few people who have more interest in revisionism (IMO more dangerous
than some forms of relativism), misplaced political correctness, and the
subtle propagation of misleading information. I wish you all the best
in your tightrope act -- as for me, I'm off to continue to teach things
that Erik says medievalists don't teach. Sue me.
Pax, Salaam, and Shalom
Jules