[WikiEN-l] Re: A neo-Nazi wikipedia

[steve v]

As one who's name was once attached to a long list of
Wikipedians claimed by certain right-wing extremists
(and their apologists) as "anti-Semites," I can only
contrast and comment on how this case is being handled
versus how that one was. Just to pick a random
example. Mark's point, and mine as well (while
respecting the monarch's opinion on the matter) is
simply that special treatment may be excessive in
reacting to a so-called threat--when equivalent things
have occurred, and when a determination of personal
threat seems to be no more  valid than in past cases. 

Just as its highly irrational to think that some
wannabe-Mossad crank is going to blow up anyone for
writing something nice about ("that rabid
anti-Semite") Noam Chomsky, its equally irrational to
regard Nazi windbags as a direct and imminent threat.
Lets keep things in perspective --the group in
question are just another bunch of right-wing
assholes, who like to get together and shit on stuff.
Just like other cranks weve dealt with. Should we
pre-ban them all? Overreacting to 1-D
dreams-of-swatting-flies-with-a-sledgehammer types is
just plain dumb. The language of "eradication" and
"disease" is par for the course for any right-wing
asshole alliances. There's some "pot and kettle" there
Im sure: "four legged beasts" etc. I personally dont
read any right-wing nutjob sites because theyre all
the same, and they all contain the same thing:
assholes expressing a deep and self-centered fondness
for themselves.

IAC, disinclusion of anyone must be done with a clear
determination that such persons would continue to be
reprehensible, have no possibility for positive
contribution, and have no future prospect for positive
contribution. Thats something thats difficult for me
to accept from a mere on-the-fly decision, considering
we do have a process (called the Arbcom) which can (if
people let it) make a more rational and deliberated
decision. The Arbcom has proven to be adequate, fair,
and responsive in dealing with problematic
personalities, without even much dealing with their
extremist affiliations and peculiarities, which are
beside the point --the behaviour is the issue, and the
behaviour is often plainly evident and can be held to
account. If things would have been thus anyway, why
the need to overreact? Why do overreactors like
yourself take offense to the questions?

SV

--- Guettarda <guettarda at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8/29/05, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > From memory, these lists, some shorter and some
> longer, have included
> > alleged:
> > -- Communists (and communists apologists)
> > -- Zionists
> > -- Anti-Semites
> > -- Terrorist apologists
> > -- Proponents of "alternative medicine"
> > -- Proponents of Creationism
> > -- Members of the Church of Scientology
> > etc.
> > 
> 
> The difference here is not the content of the list,
> it's the medium in which 
> it was posted. That Jay is Jewish is not some
> secret, he wasn't "outed" in 
> the Stormfront post. But posting a list of Jewish
> Wikipedians on a neo-Nazi 
> list by someone who was called Jews a "disease"
> which needs to be 
> "eradicated" is comparable to posting the names of
> doctors performing 
> abortion to lists calling for their assassination.
> In one case you are 
> talking about informative lists, in the other you
> are talking about a hit 
> list. I am baffled that anyone who has followed this
> discussion, either here 
> or on Wikipedia, is still making these sorts of
> comparisons. If nothing 
> else, please go back and read what Jimbo posted.
> 
> Ian
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 



	
		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail