[WikiEN-l] More benefits of RK's bad behaivor

[Brian Corr]

In response to various comments that RK has chased away a lot of people, I 
want to let people know that I came very -- *very* -- close to being one of 
those people.

I don't think anyone should underestimate the power he has had to drive 
people away -- or at the very least make them feel they are not welcome to 
"edit this page." Whatever the outcomes of this situation with are, I hope 
people will take my story into consideration as you decide.

A bit of history on me: I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia: I made my first 
edits without registering in June 
<http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=63.186.64.79>, 
and didn't get back to Wikipedia for a few months.

Then I was looking for some stuff on Google about Quebecois French, found 
it (and a bad link), registered, made a few edits, wrote my first article 
<http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty_association> and was feeling 
good. My first significant edits to an existing article came ten days later 
and were to <http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence>, which 
was listed on Pages needing attention. So I dived in, did my best to add a 
bit of context about the nature of race without taking out what others had 
said and making a few minor edits, e.g. ''Nazis" to "racists". I felt that 
the article was pretty well coming from the POV that race was a "real" 
difference between people and defined innate abilities, etc. So I did my 
best to make it more balanced and really NPOV.

Well, almost immediately (2hrs) the bulk of my additions were reverted for 
being POV by RK with these comments: "Removing a POV essay that is 
polemical, and non-scientific. Removing incorrect intro. Race is NOT a new 
topic or idea." (Here's the page history: 
<http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Race_and_intelligence&action=history>.

I am stubborn enough (just ask Hephaestos about me and the Horace 
Donisthorpe pages) and sure enough of myself that I was right that I did go 
right back to the article and make changes to one sentence: I changed "In 
recent years there have been a few theories as to why Ashkenazi Jews seem 
to have higher intelligence and success than people in many other ethnic 
groups." to "In recent years there have been a few theories as to why 
Ashkenazi Jews have higher intelligence scores on standardized tests and 
more economic and professional success in society than people in many other 
ethnic groups." In large part, I think that single edit survived because I 
had gone to RK's User page to see who this person was who trashed me 
actually was, and I threw him a bone about Ashkenazi Jews in the comment to 
my edit: "clarified statement on intelligence and success of Ashkenazim"

I still hadn't gone back to do work on this article -- which I feel it 
desperately needs, since it reads like an apologia for the book *The Bell 
Curve* -- because I didn't want to clash with this guy anymore. And I 
hadn't  looked back at the history until I started constructing this 
message -- because I'm still pissed about what he did. The lesson I learned 
was not to edit "against" RK -- and it did feel like he was against me. 
This article wasn't about Israel or Palestine, but it seems that for RK it 
was about his race and why they did better, and he wasn't interested in 
changing that. Also, if you look at the first edits he made -- 
<http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Race_and_intelligence&diff=1118114&oldid=1117288> 
-- he was the first to add in phrases about African Americans scoring lower 
on IQ tests. He also was very invested in the idea that race *is* not 
rejected by most scientists, which I would argue is just incorrect.

So, why all this detail?  I was confronted by RK's rudeness and 
unwillingness to try to edit what I had written, and when I looked at the 
page history, I discovered that RK was actually the one who had added in 
much of the material that I felt was most biased and was focused on 
promoting the idea that race is a biological -- rather than a social -- 
reality. I know that that can be argued with, but that's exactly the point 
-- it's an *opinion*, and RK was unwilling to look at it as such.

My sense is that I'm the exception rather than the rule -- I would guess 
from what I've seen over the last month that it's not that common for 
someone as new as me to start posting to the mailing list, VfD, etc.  I've 
stuck it out, written a couple of articles I like (Black_Bottom, 
United_Auto_Workers, and Urban_renewal) and empowered myself to join into 
Wikipedia's administrative functions as if I belonged here.

And by the way, I'm an African American, and none of my interactions with 
RK left me with the feeling that I and my ideas were very welcome in the 
project, but I don't expect that people will defer to me on issues of race 
because of that -- I think I have to make my case stand on its own merits 
-- and I don't assume that RK is a racist because I think some of his views 
on race are biased in my opinion. So I bit my lip and kept going. Again, I 
think I'm most likely the exception in this.

As a new person, I don't feel like I have any standing to vote for or 
against banning RK, but I will say that I will be far more likely to 
contribute to articles on race and politics if I don't think that RK might 
(will) revert my edits and deride my writing -- and me. And I think there 
are probably many more people like me (if perhaps less outspoken) who 
contribute to Wikipedia.

I also want to say since that brush with RK (as I've persevered) I've 
gotten a good deal of positive feedback and constructive criticism on a 
number of things from many of you on this list -- I wouldn't still be here 
without that.

Thanks,
Brian (Bcorr)
At 05:26 PM 10/3/03 +0000, you wrote:
>Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:48:11 +0000
>From: "Abe Sokolov" <abesokolov at hotmail.com>
>Subject: [WikiEN-l] More benefits of RK's bad behaivor
>To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>Message-ID: <BAY7-F109joGK64u7lr00006861 at hotmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
>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.
>
>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 I’ll state my solidarity
>with RK’s 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 RK’s tracts on the Palestinians, Arabs, or Islam.
>
>Perhaps I can relate to RK’s mentality better than most, but I’ve wedded a
>strong rebuke of RK’s paranoia, obnoxiousness, and bully tactics to a
>defense of the end result.