Original Research versus Point of View, was Re: [WikiEN-l] The3RR policy sho

[slimvirgin at gmail.com]

The Lyndon LaRouche supporters provide a good example of the way
Wikipedia doesn't defend itself well against determined POV pushers.
The arbcom ruled that original research emanating from the LaRouche
movement may be used on articles "closely related" to LaRouche. A
consequence of this is that the article [[Lyndon LaRouche]] now cites
claims that LaRouche developed the Star Wars program, properly
referenced to someone interviewed on LaRouche cable television. This
is just one of scores of similar claims in the 17 articles on the
LaRouche template, but you have to be knowledgeable to sort out which
claims are LaRouche nonsense, because they're not always as obvious as
the Star Wars one.

The LaRouche editors have already been through mediation. The purpose
of mediation is to find a middle way between two sides. But this is
inappropriate when dealing with someone like LaRouche, whose views
border on insanity. The post-mediation articles were a compromise
between what reputable journalists and scholars believe (that his
movement is a fascist cult, and that he is arguably unwell), and what
LaRouche supporters believe (that he designed Star Wars, is the
greatest economist of his day, that the British royal household wants
to assassinate him, and so on.) It's like saying "some believe that 2
plus 2 = 4, while others say it's 5" in a mathematics article.

They have also been through arbitration. The arbcom ruled that
LaRouche publications count as "original research" but may be used as
sources in articles "closely related" to LaRouche and his movement. As
a result, the LaRouche editors have taken ownership of the 17 articles
on the LaRouche template, and are constantly trying to bring other
articles into the "closely related" fold. They regularly attack other
editors who stand up to them, calling us "anti-LaRouche activists",
which implies that we're out to get LaRouche, rather than out to
protect Wikipedia. Most editors become disheartened and wander off.
Some try to compromise, which is why nonsense like the Star Wars claim
is allowed to sit there.

To have Wikipedia act against these people, other editors are going to
have to return to the arbcom, make the case again, do all the diffs,
maybe be asked to do an RfC first (which the LaRouche editors would
love because it would give them a public platform to re-post all their
insults), watch their own reputations be trashed by the LaRouchites,
so that the process degenerates into claim and counter-claim, and
counter-counter claim, all of it on public pages cached by Google. Who
wants to face that?

What is needed in obvious cases like this is a "benevolent dictator",
whether it's Jimbo Wales or the arbcom, to examine the editors'
contributions then ban them, because these are not bona fide
Wikipedians who happen to have a strong POV. They are fanatics acting
to promote the views of a poltical cult, and they're here for no other
reason. Yet here they remain, making a mockery of everything Wikipedia
stands for.

Slim