[WikiEN-l] MONGO and the ArbCom

[George Herbert]

On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:20:59 -0700, Fred Bauder
> <fredbaud at waterwiki.info> wrote:
>
> >The problem is that many of the users pushing this stuff believe it.
> >The discussion needs to address sources, not simply dismiss it outright.
>
> Why?  Dismissing it outright is what any rational human being does.
> Seriously. The 9/11 truthers are right up there on the grassy knoll
> with the "Elvis was abducted by aliens" crowd.  Like all classic
> conspiracy theories it demands that we believe several implausible
> hypotheses while simultaneously dismissing the perfectly rational but
> prosaic alternatives.

I've been down this road in arguments (with MONGO, strangely
enough...).  Here are my two cents.

One, to begin with, I absolutely agree that the engineering and
physics and analytical skills of 9/11 conspiracists are at best
sketchy and at worst flat-out self-delusional.  The technical claims
they make are easily demonstrably false.  My arguments here do not
spring from any sort of sympathy with what I percieve accuracy to be.

Two, there are large numbers of people who believe various aspects of
9/11 conspiracy theories.  These are verifyable (polls have been done
and published, by reputable mainstream polling organizations) and
sourced.

Three, the conspiracists have voluminously documented their beliefs,
in a verifyably sourceable manner.

Four, as a personal belief, attempts to supress conspiracists are
ultimately self-destructive.  Their ideas thrive on any public
perception that "mainstream" scientists, politicians, whoever are
seeking to deny the public the ability to read about the theory.  I
have hands-on experience with this problem going back to the Richard
Hoagland "Face on Mars" problem.  Ignoring it isn't great, and
confronting it often leads to frustration, but supressing it boosts
the popularity of the theory immensely.

I have fought this problem publically on the Internet on the Face on
Mars claims.  I have fought this problem on the Challenger Space
Shuttle disaster, the TWA flight 800 disaster, the Space Shuttle
Columbia disaster, and the 9/11 conspiracy theories.  I have the
experience to talk to this point.

It is in my opinion notable and verifyable that there are conspiracy
theories about 9/11.  In my opinion, it's perfectly fine to document
that fact in Wikipedia, and explain what those theories are.

It's also perfectly fine to segregate that off on topic specific pages
with a brief mention in the event page that says "Various
organizations believe different theories of these events, see
[[Conspiracy theories about XYZ]]".  Segregation is not suppression,
and even the conspiracists eventually generally give in on those types
of points.


I have not been hanging around the 9/11 related Wikipedia pages
regularly for a while and I don't know the degree of shove we're
getting from those conspiracists of late.  I am sympathetic with "it
takes too much effort to fight these kooks", but suppressing Wikipedia
*coverage* of the issues is almost certainly the wrong approach to
dealing with it.

In my currently ideal world, we'd do something like a policy which
says that conspiracy theories MUST be segregated to a separate page,
and simply apply normal warn-and-block to anyone who violates that and
puts it on the main pages.  Let them have their playpen at the
conspiracy theory page, let the anti-conspiracy-theory people have a
"Criticisms of conspiracy theories about X" page to argue the point
on, and concentrate on squashing anyone who tries to pull that debate
onto the main page.  Give Arbcom the ability to decide if a particular
issue or page / set of pages meet the conspiracy theory policy, and
then let the normal admin anti-vandalism policy take hold.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com