[WikiEN-l] NOTES on Jehovah's Witnesses: Controversial Issues

[Jimmy Wales]

I'm pretty sure that my response will not make either side happy, as I
conclude that both sides are wrong in this controversy *and* that
neither side needs to be banned.  There's a long analysis here and
then a conclusion at the bottom.  People only marginally following
this can just skip to my CONCLUSION.

Clutch launched the article on Sep. 26, 2002, apparently thinking of
it as a "scratchpad" where people could work "until what is factual
and what is not can get hashed out sufficiently to be put in the
article on Jehovah's Witnesses in a neutral manner."

He included some external links, presumably so newcomers to the
discussion could get up to speed on the criticisms being discussed.

For the next 14 days, the only activity was a low grade edit/revert
war with Modemac.  Modemac kept deleting the external links; Clutch
kept restoring them.  

I think that at this point, Clutch was clearly in the right.  Those
external links were valid and useful.  Eventually, he lost this
battle, as the links are not in the current version at all.  Maybe he
just gave up.

Finally, on Oct. 10, discussion took off when Wesley added some new
information.  Modemac weighed in again, by simply deleting the
external links again.

Then, on Oct. 14-15 Modemac weighed in, usefully this time, by adding
the bulk of the text that is still there.  This was edited and
expanded in the usual wikipedia fashion by Vicki Rosenzweig, RK, Ed
Poor, and Soulpatch.

On Oct. 20, RK returns and adds section headings and introduces the
first "Changing Doctrines" material.

There were only a few other edits, relatively minor in nature, until
Dec. 12, when the current controversy broke out.

At this point, Clutch returned and removed a ton of material from the
article, with the stated reason "Removing material already
incorporated on the Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses page".  I have
not verified this claim, but if true, it is consistent with Clutch's
originally stated view of the purpose of the page.

After that, there's a ton of edits back and
forth... delete/revert/delete/revert.

It does not seem to me that IN THIS CASE, RK and Clutch are disputing
anything about the actual _content_ of the article in question.
Clutch feels that this article needs to mostly go away because the information
in it is in other articles.  RK feels the opposite, but mostly opposes what he
sees as heavy-handed unilateral action by Clutch.

There is NOTHING on the talk page about this particular controversy.
(There is discussion there of various _content_ controversies.)

On the talk page, RK says "The problem is that I have already tried to
do so three times. Each time I started doing this the pro-JW faction
came in and vandalized the entry by immediately deleting the material
I was adding, which included many specifics."  (To fully understand
what he's talking about, you need to read the full context on the talk
page.)

He wrote this at 15:07 Oct 14, 2002, but he must be referring to some
other article, because his first edit is at 14:07 Oct 14, 2002, and he
had only made that one edit.  I'm assuming he's referring to the main
Jehovah's Witness article.  Were people deleting stuff from there?

Is there really a "pro-JW faction"?  Are there any Jehovah's Witnesses
working on this article?

--------------

CONCLUSION

I conclude, preliminarily, that Clutch and RK were both wrong to
engage in a pointless edit war without also, at least, opening a
discussion on the talk page about the merits/demerits of getting rid
of the article or keeping it.  But neither do their actions amount to
bannable vandalism.

I further conclude, preliminary, that Clutch and RK both made claims
about consensus which are, at best, unverifiable from the talk page.
When there is no discussion on the talk page about what should be done
with the article, no conclusion can be drawn about consensus.

Generally speaking, making claims about consensus is wrong.  If it
really were consensus, then there would be no controversy left about
it.

Unless more information is pointed out to me about this controversy, I
will conclude by simply asking two things:

1.  Folks, please try not to get into simple back-and-forth
edit/revert wars.  Let the other person win for awhile, and make your
case on the talk page.  Try to meet the other person halfway.  

	a.  For people in Clutch's position here: Ask before making any major
	changes. Apologize if you make a major change that upsets someone, and
	let the reversion stand until you can resolve the other person's concerns.

	b.  For people in RK's position here: rather than merely reverting, revert
	and make a comment on talk page, a comment that presumes good will on the
	other person's part.  Try not to call people names like "pathological liar".

2.  Let's not be so hasty to call for bans, nor so hasty to cry
vandalism.  Not every asshole action the other person takes is
vandalism.

------------------

I have no opinion about whether the material in this article is in
other articles.  I have no opinion about whether this article should
continue to exist.  I only have the opinion that the right way to
figure it out is to *talk* about it, not to engage in demands and
counter-demands, edits and reverts.

--Jimbo