[WikiEN-l] Odd

[Geoff Burling]

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Skyring wrote:

> On 7/13/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Skyring wrote:
> >
> > > I've just spotted this on the talk page of a user: "I will revert all
> > > edits to all articles on my watchlist by the LaRouche cult "editor"
> > > Cognition, or any other recognisable LaRouche editor. I will do this
> > > until either the LaRouche cultists are banned from Wikipedia or I am.
> > > I don't much care which, since an encyclopaedia which allows crackpot
> > > cultists to edit its articles is not worth writing for."
> > >
> > > Now, to my poor understanding, this user is threatening to revert any
> > > edits made to any article on his 1000+ witchlist, regardless of merit,
> > > so long as that edit is made by someone he identifies as a particular
> > > sort of crackpot.
> > >
> > > What I know about LaRouche could be summed up in one word, but surely
> > > Wikipedia is not going to be destroyed by the presence or absence of
> > > one particular editor?
> > >
> > Well, I happen to know that a case came before the ArbCom concerning
> > LaRouche followers who tried to add citations from their leader to a
> > number of unrelated articles, which resulted in a decision that was not
> > in their favor.
> >
> > And I seem to remember that one of the editors involved in limiting
> > their attempts to flood Wikipedia with pro-Larouche citations was Adam
> > Carr. These wouldn't be Carr's words, would they?
>
> They would indeed. However, who said them is essentially irrelevant.
> What is important is the attitude behind making such a statement.
>
> > I suggest you do more research: the ArbCom concluded these people
> > were POV-pushers, & a danger to Wikipedia. I doubt you will find much
> > support criticizing the person wrote this, no matter how ill-tempered
> > that editor might be.
>
> I'm not for a moment trying to support LaRouche POV pushers. Seems to
> me that the system is working as intended to limit their penetration
> to the extent allowed by agreed wikipolicy i.e. not a lot.

It appears that you are reading my response as a defense of Carr --
which was not my intent, & your misunderstanding was likely due to how
I expressed myself. So let me explain further.

It's apparent from your posts that you want Adam Carr censured for his
incivility. And it is apparent from the responses to your posts that
his incivility is widely acknowledged -- & likely makes any accusation
you make of him suspect.

And there is a further point that has emerged from the submissions to
this list: let's make the job of the ArbCom *simpler*. In other words,
instead of finding hard cases where a plausible argument can be made
to defend his behavior, find a clear case of Carr acting incivilly --
like a bully to a newbie, say -- that is not defensible.

And to be honest, while the language in the above sample you provide
comes close to the line, not only does it not cross that line it is
something that I can fully imagine any editor saying to a troublemaker
in a moment of frustration. And I've seen worse said to people who
sound eager to wind up before the ArbCom.

[snip]
>
> I mentioned earlier that his "ultimatum" sounded like a teenager's
> statements just before an unsuccessful suicide attempt. A plea for
> attention. This in itself is a fairly serious thing to do, indicating
> that the person making such a statement has reached the end of his own
> resources and needs external help. But I know for a fact that Adam has
> his own wikisupport network in place.

I didn't get the same message, & suicide is a matter that I've
unfortunately have had too much experience with.
>
> If these sorts of dramatic exits are common on Wikipedia, then I
> venture to suggest that something should be done to reduce their
> recurrence. I don't want to feel in a year or so that I can't go any
> further and that Wikipedia is doomed and that I'm following in the
> footsteps of a large number of burnt-out editors.

One of the drawbacks of Wikipedia is in the effect conflicts have on
its volunteers. (No one seems to have studied this angle, so what I
am about to write is largely based on my unrepresentative sample of
experience.) It seems that every editor eventually encounters a major
struggle over content, which usually results in one of two responses:
either the editor develops an extremely thick skin to further criticism
& a very short temper with other people, or retreats off to work on
one of the 90+% of articles that attract little attention due to
their obscure or esoteric nature. In either case, the editor begins
a gradual process of consciously isolating her/himself from the rest
of Wikipedia -- which means that they are less likely to intervene &
help resolve conflicts sucessfully elsewhere on Wikipedia. (This
point was made to me some months ago in almost these exact words when
I posted a note about a potential troublemaker on the admin bulletin
board, & I suspect that this admin is not the only one who does not
want to get involved in conflicts unless there is a clear "bad" guy &
a clear "good" guy.)

And by isolating oneself here on Wikipedia, one loses out on the
positive reinforcement that should come from working with other
people for a common good. We have very few mechanisms on Wikipedia
to break through this isolation, either intentional or accidental,
& when some are used -- Barnstars & FAC nominations for example --
too often they also produce jealousy amongst other contributors,
who then begin to suspect that there is a cabal -- or at the least
a gang of cool kids who tell each other just how hip they are --
that they are not part of.

I have no good solution for this problem -- although I feel
Wikimeetups are a good step. I'm not even certain whether this is
a problem for more than a few people on Wikipedia -- which is why
I mentioned that this is an issue worth some attention from the
appropriate experts. Even though this would be a distraction from
our goal of creating an encyclopedia.

Geoff