Tom Parmenter (Ortolan88) wrote:

PS -- I don't think much of that German law and I imagine many Americans (others too) would probably agree that while holocaust denial presents a serious problem for the Wikipedia, enforcing that law would not be the way we'd want to go about getting rid of her. Let's just leave it at this, "She's had her chance and she's more trouble than she's worth."

Oh, I didn't want to suggest to denounce her, I just don't want Jimbo to be arrested when occasionally entering Germany ...

Regards,

JeLuF

Jimmy Wales wrote:

Jens Frank wrote:

...

Oh, I didn't want to suggest to denounce her, I just don't want Jimbo to be arrested when occasionally entering Germany ...

*grin* That's a very very good thing.

I'm talking via email with Helga. It is not going very well. I feel that I will not be able to change her mind directly. I have told her not to post anything further about WWII, Poland, Germany, Judaism, or related topics until we get this straightened out.

I am not inclined, as everyone knows, towards bans. But if someone has an agenda and is completely uncooperative, well, I'm just not sure how much we can stand.

I haven't tried to 'fix' her articles because I know bugger all about German history, but I'd say that everyone has had their patience tried long enough. She is not a useful contributor - she's a kook who wants to use the wikipedia to push her private bandwagon, which just so happens to have no relationship to the facts. I'm the first to admit to having my own little wagon that I'm pushing on the wikipedia, but most of us pay SOME attention to the NPOV philosophy and make sure that what we are contributing is based on fact, not some loonytunes supposition.

I would vote to ban her just for the sake of everyone else's sanity. When you've tried reasoning and you've tried persuading and you've tried asking nicely it's time for a little old-fashioned force.

On 26-08-2002, wojtek pobratyn wrote thusly :

Karen AKA Kajikit wrote thusly: | I haven't tried to 'fix' her articles because I know bugger all about | German history, but I'd say that everyone has had their patience tried | long enough. She is not a useful contributor - she's a kook who wants to | use the wikipedia to push her private bandwagon, which just so happens | to have no relationship to the facts. I'm the first to admit to having | my own little wagon that I'm pushing on the wikipedia, but most of us | pay SOME attention to the NPOV philosophy and make sure that what we are | contributing is based on fact, not some loonytunes supposition. | I would vote to ban her just for the sake of everyone else's sanity. | When you've tried reasoning and you've tried persuading and you've tried | asking nicely it's time for a little old-fashioned force.

Wojtek :

I totally agree with Karen - HJ's contributions are far from useful and even further from being NPOV. Her failling to join this list and argue her POV makes this sort of discussion plus editing her artciles a waste of everybody's resources. I'm all for a temporary ban.

I think we should give her the last warning. If it fails there's no other way that to ban her for some time. I think that I know her motives but because she is in fact a hindrance to the Wikipedia's progress and her writing undermines the basic rules of Wikipedia banning her seems to be the sad necessity.

Regards, kpjas.

Jimmy Wales wrote:

Jens Frank wrote:

...

Oh, I didn't want to suggest to denounce her, I just don't want Jimbo to be arrested when occasionally entering Germany ...

*grin* That's a very very good thing.

Is it possible for the German government to arrest a U.S. citizen for supporting free speech on a server located in the USA? It would seem out of their jurisdiction.

I'm talking via email with Helga. It is not going very well. I feel that I will not be able to change her mind directly. I have told her not to post anything further about WWII, Poland, Germany, Judaism, or related topics until we get this straightened out.

I am not inclined, as everyone knows, towards bans. But if someone has an agenda and is completely uncooperative, well, I'm just not sure how much we can stand.

Clearly there are limits. The following essay is intended to be a general discussion of a pattern of problems. If things with Helga are beyond repair, or become so, then I feel that is unfortunate. The following is not intended as a statement regarding any specific action(s) taken in the past or to be taken in the future but rather as a discussion of the ramifications, consequences, and potential benefits of reducing future problems via pattern or process modification by the "community" if possible and desirable.

It seems we have a recurring pattern of minorities (actually individuals, they typically seem to get run off before additional "party" members show up and become factions) with agendas and/or material that we are not integrating well into our "neutral" culture and resulting NPOV Wikipedia presentation.

I wonder if we are failing to branch the draft material effectively such that minority views can be developed effectively and fairly and then linked to appropriately from more mainstream overview articles.

Granted that if individuals/factions with an agenda, poor evidence, low credibility, etc. want/insist on mainstream billing as fact or "the truth" then this not easily reconcilable. Is it possible that we are not branching quickly enough to represent minority views or weaker cases in arguments that are inherently fuzzy?

For example: There is, in my perception, currently an undercurrent circulating in the U.S. that U.S. oil related policies are in large part responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. Add to this the fact that Israeli airlines have had locks on the cockpit doors for decades to help prevent highjacking. The rush to obliterate the Taliban and Al Queda starts to look suspiciously like a diversion of public attention from domestic culpability, negligence, and stupidity.

I think a substantial minority view could be written up that the U.S. would be better off fixing stupid U.S. policies leading to this type of attack rather than invading and attempting to control portions of the Middle East via puppet or "friendly" governments after the inevitable (policies have consequences or else they are ineffectual and insignificant to real world events) attacks occur.

No doubt if I firmly believed this and insisted on front page billing it as "the truth", right thinking "patriotic" Americans would quickly get irritated. Clearly this could escalate to the point I was no longer welcome at Wikipedia, at least for the duration of the war efforts, or I got grumpy and disappeared.

Good riddance! Less wasted time all around among the mainstream adherents. Who then is going to write the minority position? A paragraph sop to the minority position written by a majority view adherent which includes a couple of links to incoherent or poor material available elsewhere on the web hardly seems like a rigorous NPOV approach to summarizing the available knowledge deeply, broadly, and reliably for future reader's use.

Obviously this case could be put in its own article appropriately NPOV'd at the top with some context. In my view, the case could then be made from its own viewpoint. Preferably by someone sympathetic, enthusiastic, or attached to this viewpoint and critiqued appropriately by others. External links could also provide some context prior to linking to the minority view or "propaganda" or revisionism. Would this be more acceptable to radical or angry minorities than an enforced brief paragraph "weighted" according to its perception of importance by the mainstream?

Could controversy be diluted and managed more effectively by branching multiple views early in a maze of interconnected articles reached primarily from an NPOV summary?

IOW would we, the Wikipedia community, tend to lose less angry, grumpy, rude individuals perceiving their views as arbitrarily discounted without full presentation? Censored by a tyrannical majority view. Very unpalatable. Is an opportunity to develop a complete view by adherents of that view contextualized to NPOV via a paragraph at the top including back links to the prevailing majority views more palatable to at least some of the minority factions or radicals that we are currently running off?

The current prevailing majority view in the U.S. is clearly that we were justified in attacking the de facto government of Afghanistan. In my opinion, other views should be articulated and preserved as well. Notice how the justification for citizens of Japanese descent internment in World War II is now viewed at the same time we are imprisoning hundreds of Arabs without releasing their names and providing no recourse to courts.

The public's views of Vietnam has also shifted treacherously from the mandated or publicised views of the involved U.S. Administrations to the point that MacNamara now claims he knew his Vietnam policies were ineffectual and idiotic. Why then has he not been prosecuted for treason or dereliction of duty? The fifth? Statute of limitations? There was a lot of rude discussion on both sides of this issue during the 60s, 70s, and 80s. It did not invalidate their data or opinions but it did make it difficult to reach an agreement regarding reality.

Another more local example:

"Art" has not returned to "Infanticide" since Ed and I invited him to collaborate with us in finding more evidence and improving the article. He seemed to be relying exclusively on one "scholar" who skirted with making some very strong claims and stated strong opinions without providing sufficient evidence or analysis to back them up conclusively.

Clearly the main article has to be clear that insufficient evidence exists to make strong claims that infanticide was a widespread and frequent practice. The evidence supports that it occurred widely in all ancient civilizations but provides no real proof of quantitative frequency. That it occurred at least occasionally in most/all ancient civilizations is clear and acknowledged by the mainstream view.

Would "Art" have stuck around (remained calmer and integrated into the contributing "community" better) if encouraged to help write up a separate draft article making the best case possible for his clear, firm belief (that infanticide was very common in the past) which could be linked to from the main article with the context that insufficient evidence existed to state this conclusively as fact; in the view of most scholars? Art, I (and possibly Ed) could make the best case possible for Art's beliefs or views citing and quoting DeMause and other supporting sources, while the current talk page analysis of DeMause could be refactored as discussion of why the evidence is too weak to support the strong view. All of this would be off the mainstream summary page of infanticide which seems to have stablized for the moment, primarily because Art is apparently gone, not because of any acknowledged consensus that all the material and pertinent views had been presented fairly for future readers assessment.

I understand that Helga's views are considered incorrect, offensive, and even worse, revisionist propaganda, by some or many of us.

It seems to me that if they are common to a substantial number of former Soviet citizens, or German Nazis, that they belong somewhere in an NPOV Wikipedia. Likewise Nazi views of what they thought they were doing with the death camps. Was the genocide truly viewed as beneficial to the anticipated German empire? Was this an opportunistic ploy by cynical politicians, or merely a personal crusade by Hitler sanctioned by his underlings despite the large impact on the war effort. Similar genocides are documented in the Bible and in accounts of the American West. Accounts and justifications vary widely between the involved factions.

The tribes obliterated by Jewish refugees from Egypt are not well documented in history other than by biblical reference. Did they really exist? Did they agree that they were evil and that the tribes of Israel could make more appropriate use of their land because Jewish prophets were in contact with the almighty? Should their misery be ignored in the English Wikipedia because much of the English speaking world is dominated by Christians and it is politically incorrect this decade to dislike Jews or large U.S. subsidies for Israel's defense courtesy of the lobbying of the Jewish Defense League? Should their fate be ignored for lack of evidence while the bible is cited as a reputable source elsewhere?

How many views of the Crusades will crop up? Were they justified? Is there any disagreement about which factions were slaughtering or converting Arabs, Jews, natives, natural resources, land, etc. Is there any agreement regarding beliefs, motives, methods, routes, numbers, etc. How should the conflicting evidence be developed and presented.

Did Drake beat the Spanish Armada through sheer genius or did their deficiencies in logistics doom a very large rag tag fleet from the start? I have seen it presented both ways in documentaries.

McCarthy was firmly discredited for his methods in his communist hunt but decades later Soviet records claim some of his victims were truly agents. KGB propaganda? Coincidence that of thousands of victims persectuted some of the famous ones were actually guilty? How should future Americans understand the paranoid cold war era without exposure to his faction's views that there were communists under every rock in Hollywood? Some of the opposing factions seemed to view McCarthy merely as a self serving politician, not a patriot. Would not multiple views and presentation of the evidence for and against belong in a deep, broad, reliable resource discussing the Cold War? Anything less is merely presenting the writer's opinion instead of providing material for the reader to form their own assessment and conclusions.

Perhaps our methodology can be improved by branching the draft material early and often. Controversial material can thus be relegated away from the "mainstream" or core articles and linked to with proper caveats. Caucuses of ideologues could focus on developing their various views while the calmest and politest members negotiate the wording of the context for the mainstream summaries that point to the minority views. People willing to discuss controversial issues at length and detail could assist with augmenting and improving the controversial view sub articles while others with less patience, time, or interest could watch the NPOV top level summaries.

If this occurred before heated edit wars got started, or shortly thereafter as routine development of various views, it might be beneficial in expanding our diversity by retaining some of our grumpier, ruder, radicals. Perhaps they might even calm down and get a little more polite or effective in presenting their evidence instead of their opinions.

I take strong exception to the seemingly prevailing view that "Wikipedia is not a discussion forum." I do not believe it is possible to achieve a deep, broad, reliable Wikipedia presentation of available human knowledge without extensive (hopefully polite) discussion regarding the source material and how to best present it. Controversy is inevitable and we need to learn how to better deal with it to preserve our diversity. Certainly people who wish to stick to known "provable" facts, cite the source of evidence and move on should be able to. People who wish to present, critique, discuss in more detail at length should also be empowered.

I agree that it is not a forum for attempting to convert others to a particular view. I think it should also not be a forum to censor or run off other views. If this is agreed in principle then some effort is appropriate for the community to learn how to communicate effectively with angry minorities that polite interaction is appropriate. Assurance that their views will not be arbitrarily dismissed (or worse, distorted and unsubstantiated in a small paragraph) without due process would be a good start.

Many have taken the implicit stance that it is each individual's responsibility to be polite and civil and learn how to get along with the "community". We, the existing "community", do not need people who cannot learn quickly how to get along with us. I think this ignores the diverse background and previous internet environments that new contributors bring with them. Concluding that newcomer's who disagree with a regular and then get defensive, impolite, and rhetorically ineffective when reinforcements show up (after threats and warnings) to help delete or edit "inappropriate" content are better rejected (or ultimately banned) rather than shown effectively how the local processes can work well begs several questions:

1. How are we going to get their unpopular views and alleged information contributed if they do not provide it?

2. Who is going to do all this remaining work? It is not a small undertaking to write a deep, broad, reliable summary of human knowledge. 37 sys ops, 200 regular contributors, 1000 repeat contributors, and 4,000 registered accounts is an excellent start but there is a long ways to go. The more complete it gets and the more used, the more maintenance effort it will require.

3. When regulars disagree and fail to agree to disagree politely, how shall we decide which faction to run off?

4. When factions run off or fork why are we interested in inviting them to return to the main project?

Learning how to better orientate and accustom newcomers to our "culture" may take a substantial investment of time. It could have a large payoff from improved diversity in interests, viewpoints, sources of draft content; reduced maintenance effort; and increased available volunteer effort. The trick, in my view, is in getting processes set up such that the investment in time can be made by appropriately interested people rather than on a crisis demand basis by exasperated adversaries as each new radical is discovered or made angry in the stacks.

regards, Mike Irwin

<removed Mike Irwin's interesting essay on unpopular points of view and wikipedia, which I urge everyone to read>

The fact is, everyone has bent over backwards with Helga and given her every opportunity to collaborate, explain, discuss, proffer evidence. People have given her questions to answer, opportunities to give sources, suggestions on NPOV, ideas about how to enter controversial points of view, and none of it has worked. All has been met with what I would call truculent ignorance. She is more interested in "proving" that Copernicus was "German" and that this fine "German" reformed the coinage of some long-lost province of the Holy Roman Empire than she is in whether the sun revolves around the earth or the other way around. She translated dubious material from German and cannot understand that translation doesn't remove the copyright. She thinks one speech in 1946 by James Eastland trumps the entire history of the 20th century. That one anti-Hitler article in a Jewish newspaper in 1934 (!) justifies the Holocaust.

The history seems similar to the notorious "24", whom I missed by coming in late on all this. It is not the controversial point of view that makes these people wrong for Wikipedia, it is the refusal to engage in any dialogue to improve their contributions, a refusal that amounts to trolling in my view. Poor old 24 was bound and determined to prove that there was censorship in the wikipedia and he finally managed it at the cost of never getting anything he wanted heard into the work in any form. I'd say Helga is on the same path. The Ark guy too.

In contrast, Mike Irwin (and Ed Poor and several others, maybe even me, not to single anyone out) are willing to soldier along, bringing up sticky points, discusssing them, defending themselves, attacking other views, apologizing on occasion, giving in from time to time, sticking to their guns on other occasions, enlivening the talk pages, and generally engaging in synthesis that assures that most of what they (we) want to say makes it into the Encyclopedia, however cloaked in NPOV it may turn out to be in the end.

Tom Parmenter Ortolan88