[WikiEN-l] RE: WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 11, Issue 4

[Jim Kork]

First of all, let's keep in mind what we are trying to find here. We are not 
trying to show that I made mistakes or you made mistakes, what we are trying 
to do is to show that whether I have vandalized wikipedia or not. So, please 
keep your claims in check and don't go over the board and depict me as 
hostile, since disagreeing is normal, what is not normal is claiming that 
the other person is a vandalizer. I hope you keep that in mind.


"Blanking an article is an extreme act, & is bound to offend many people
even if done by a seasoned contributor who has much experience & has earned
much trust. You did that with no explanation, & after having your edits 
twice
rejected; sorry, but anyone will read that as pushing your own POV without
concern for the views or feelings of other people who contribute to
Wikipedia."
I think, you didn't read my earlier emails. Please, please, please 
understand that with the earlier version of wikipedia I couldn't figure out 
how to leave a comment for my changes. In fact I thought only privileged 
users could do that.

"I think you read too much into the point of the article. Someone was
abusing Usenet in a very clumsy fashion to push his political agenda: that
was the entire point of the Serdar Argic episode. But instead of asking
questions about the intent of the article on the Talk page, or explain
how it came over to you, you decided to blank it without a justification
for your act to anyone."
Again and again, I couldn't figure out the talk page until the design change 
in wikipedia. Before replying, if you dared to read the blocking policy of 
wikipedia you would realize that, such mistakes are not considered to be 
vandalizing.


"If you could figure out how to make changes to an article, why couldn't you
figure out how to discuss making changes to it?  Help me understand this:
when I came to Wikipedia, I understood how to both make changes & add
comments to articles; you claim that you couldn't figure this out, which
means that our interface as somehow broken."
You may believe it or not, if I was lying, I wouldn't come here and complain 
about this. My ban is lifted already. The point is that, if you do not want 
to understand people having problem with the wikipedia's interface (the old 
one), you can never improve wikipedia. If everybody was like you, maybe the 
interface wouldn't change at all. Now, in every page I can clearly see all 
the actions and it makes perfect sense to me, previously I didn't realize 
that there was a discussion page at all, though I read references to such 
pages. As I said, I thought only certain users can access to such pages. Oh, 
editing the article is easy, because there was a link that says edit this 
page. From my earlier experience with wikis, I have never seen such 
discussion pages, I think that past experience is the real reason why I 
couldn't figure out discussion pages.


"I've read the Wikipedia article: Genocide is the intentional mass murder
of people based on their ethnic heritage. A large number of Armenians were
killed on the basis of their ethnic background -- you admit that this
happened. However, you then talk about people dying in a war, which does
not logically follow."
So are you saying that during the wars, there were genocides. Say, American 
bombers bombing Japan cities were actually part of a Japanese genocide? 
Please, put everything in perspective, and try to get to the bottom of this, 
instead of simply saying this is a genocide. There are so many aspects of 
this issue, and yet the article currently is not credible enough.

"I would hazard a guess here about what you are trying to say, but I find
it hard to be sympathetic after you've called me "arrogant". If you want
to start an argument over this topic, I'm sure you can find a better
combatant elsewhere: I'm just trying to explain how your behavior is hurting
your participation here on Wikipedia."
So far, my only mistake is not being able to understand how to edit, 
discuss, leave reasons and so on. With the new design all these problems are 
solved for me.


"1. On 13 May 2004, the number of victims of the was given as between 
500,000
and 2,000,000 dead, but 1,500,000 is the most commonly accepted number.
2. You subsequently changed the numbers to "between 300,000 and 2,000,000
dead" and to 500,000 as the most commonly accepted number; these numbers
were reverted to the first set of numbers on 18 May.
3. Once again you changed the numbers, this time to "between 300,000 and
1,000,000" and to 400,000 as the most commonly accepted total; & once again
these numbers were reverted, on 22 May.
4. Again you changed the numbers, this time the range was "between 200,000
and 1,000,000", & while you left the most commonly accepted total unchanged,
you changed the figure Toynbee is said to have estimated. These numbers
were once again restored to the original figures on 24 May.
5. Then you changed the figures once last time, giving a range of "between
100,000 and 1,500,000 died" & the most commonly accepted number to
300,000, as well as deleting McCarthy's estimate. These were restored on
30 May."
I have read so many documents on this issue, since I don't know how to 
revert a change (get back an older one) I edited that part multiple times. 
In some instances I remembered the numbers wrong and in some case misread 
one number. I don't memorize all the numbers, and during my edits I make 
mistakes. You can find other mistakes too, not just numbers. Now, I am 
editing in my local computer first and then posting it. Also I save the 
document locally so that I can later on read what I wrote exactly, trying to 
do that through browser is somewhat complicated and long.


"The only consistent pattern I can see to these changes are that you kept
trying to reduce the numbers"
I am not trying to reduce the numbers, that is quite childish, however those 
numbers should be reduced based on the resources I have read (including 
credible Armenian and Turkish resources). The article is quite ridicilous 
here, for example it says 1'500'000 is the normally accepted number. There 
is no such historic acceptance. As I said, this article looks more like a 
propaganda article, rather than an objective one which provides all sides of 
the equation.


"You deleted or altered verifiable facts (e.g., what Toynbee & McCarthy
wrote)."
That was a mistake while I was editing it. Though McCarthy seem to be 
disputed.

"As a couple of veteran Wikipedians have said in another thread,
if you don't agree with what is stated, why don't you instead provide better
facts instead of changing them? Can't you take the time to find authorities
who attest to the lower numbers you offered, & thereby improve quality of
the article's content? I don't know where the original figures for the
casualties came form, but the fact 3 or 4 different editors agreed on one
set of numbers is far more convincing than the 4 different numbers you
supplied without attribution."
First of all, which editors are you talking about? Are there specific 
editors for articles, or are you talking about in general users who modify 
the articles? Second, I already mentioned that I will do a better job in 
providing more resources, however that doesn't change the fact that the 
current article as it stands is not objective enough and needs editing. You 
don't put few numbers there and declare them to be the accepted norm by 
yourself, you need to do some serious research. From the research I have 
done (involves both sides) I couldn't see such an accepted number and I 
should also mention that the accepted number happen to be the higher end of 
the range in the article! Also, from the population numbers given in the 
article, the detah numbers seem to be quite unreliable and somewhat 
conflicting.


"First, I didn't call you a vandal: the point of my original email was to
explain how your contributions were not taken seriously."
But blocking due to vandalism is the reason why I send the initial email. I 
see that to be a serious contributor I need to do more, but how can I learn 
if you simply block me. The blocking policy clearly shows when to block, how 
to block. You can't block because you disagree with me, you have to block 
when I am in fact vandalizing.

"I still hope this is the case: Wikipedia is in constant need of 
contributors who want to
improve its content."
I also realized that and I am trying to contribute as much as possible, not 
just in these controversial issues, but others too. Recently I started to 
use Wikipedia heavily and realized that it is quite good in certain number 
of subjects.

"Yet if you consider my attempt at constructive criticism is nothing more 
than calling you a "vandal", then I feel that I'm at a loss to convince you 
otherwise."
I do take your constructive criticism seriously, and I do hope that in my 
replies I reflect that. But again, this email was sent because the blocking 
page said me to send it if the blocking violates the blocking policy, and as 
I tried to express, it does. I didn't vandalize anything and I didn't 
attempt to do that. Blocking policy page is quite clear about my actions.


"When I first read your second sentence, I was puzzled over how what 
relevance
this had to my statement: I had expressed an opinion about a weakness in the
article; you somehow understood this as a statement about you."
Sorry, if I misunderstand you.

"Then I remembered in my original email I wrote that "everyone except 
Turkish
nationals" believe this. Absolute statements are always hazardous: I should
have written "almost everyone except Turkish nationals"."
I disagree here. I don't know too much Turkish guys, but I do know some, and 
they all know what happened. Turkish historians know what happened. The 
problem here is how you describe those events and what do you call them. 
That's the main problem and this issue turned into a political game (France 
signed a law about this historic debate!). I have also seen people accusing 
Turkey of being an oil rich country (which it is not and quite funny) and 
that because of this reason Turkish point of view is accepted in US 
government. Let's be more accurate on these issues.


"And that statement is a fair one: I Googled on the phrase "Armenian 
Genocide",
& got 105,000 hits. The first few pages were all on pages that believed
that it was a historical fact: one (http://www.cilicia.com/armo10c.html)
was a collection of contemporary articles from the New York Times detailing
the events; another 
(http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/facts/gen_bibl.html)
is a list of publications about this event, which includes a number of
reports published by the League of Nations investigating the event."
I am quite puzzled the way you are trying to show me that I am wrong. 
Everybody uses the term "Armenian Genocide" including the Turkish resources, 
because that's the issue you are talking about. Obviously you will find that 
many links on the net. Another point is that, putting more and more number 
of pages do not make this a truth, remember google bombing? Finally, your 
second link "http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/facts/gen_bibl.html" 
gave me "no longer available" page. I hoped you put more effort to check out 
your references and a better way of doing that. As an example search for 
"Web Standards" in google and see the first page, it is not W3C. By the way, 
again, nobody says nothing have happened, and that's maybe part of the 
problem, since you quickly jump into the conclusion that "so, you see it is 
a genocide". Unfortunately that's not that easy.


"My point of mentioning all of this evidence is not to prove that it 
happened,
but to show you that you have a lot of work ahead of you to present the
Turkish POV in convincing way. And making deletions from an IP address, &
offering only the most brief explanations is not going to do it."
I don't know exactly what Turkish POV, and I don't think there is one. What 
I am trying to do is to make the article more credible, more objective and 
more appealing to the reader. Right now, you read something like a 
propaganda. The person who blocked me claimed that I am Serdar Argic, for 
example. If the idea is to make Wikipedia credible and serious, these hotly 
debated articles should be as objective as possible. Right now, the whole 
article is just saying that Turkish government is evil and that they deny 
what had happened. It doesn't go the distance and present the whole issue 
clearly to the reader. It is like a movie plot now, good guy, bad guy etc...


"Well, this is the first I have read about these claims. You would be better
off taking the time explaining these things & not deleting or altering what
you find objectionable. This article is not going anywhere; Wikipedia is not
going anywhere. The world won't end because any given article needs fixing:
I can think of dozens of articles that need work, but I won't be working
on soon because they need some research. Take the time to explain & document
these points, & they will better survive future edits."
As I said, once that I learnt how to edit and discuss I can be more helpful 
on these issues. I wasn't trying to rush or anything. And once again, my 
original poit was that this blocking was not right, since I didn't vandalize 
anything. Though I am glad to learn more about wikipedia this way.


"It is not the fact you made changes. You made changes without concern
that other people disagreed with you, & continued to repeat them without
venturing into any form of dialogue until your IP address was blocked. 
Instead
of responding to comments on your Talk page, you deleted them; instead of
providing better figures for casualties in [[Armenian Genocide]], you
changed them to lower numbers, seemingly picked at random."
I deleted the comments in my Talk page because it was accusing me of being 
Serdar Argic! Also the person who left me that note says that he is going to 
delete any other anonymous users's comments from his page. So where is the 
justice here? Someone who deletes my comments is happy to leave a comment to 
my page. That's why I deleted my talk page comment from RickK.

I hope I clearly explained why I couldn't discuss my changes or leave a 
reason. In the old interface, I couldn't find how to leave a reason for 
example. I also couldn't find the discussion page, actually I didn't know 
that there is one, until I saw in a user page that mentions the discussion 
pages. Anyway, this was not vandalizing. Vandalizing is quite clearly 
explained in the blocking policy page.


"If I came to your house & put a new roof on for free, you would think that 
was
an act of kindness; if I came to your house & threw a brick through one of
your windows, you would consider it an act of hostility. We want people to
come to Wikipedia & make our house better, not worse. Can you put yourself
in our place & see how we might consider your actions hostile?"

Wikipedia is everybody's house, including mine. ;)

Jim

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963