[WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy

[jayjg]

On 5/30/07, Sheldon Rampton <sheldon at prwatch.org> wrote:
> jayjg wrote:
>
> > I'm not interested in generalities and slippery slope arguments,
> > though,  I'm looking for specifics. When would it be beneficial to
> > Wikipedia to link to WR?
>
> This statement is an interesting example of the rhetorical technique
> known as "framing." Jayjg is defending a policy that enables BADSITES
> supporters to impose a censorship rule on every other Wikipedian.

And your statement is a rather mundane example of the rhetorical
technique known as a "straw man argument".

> The
> proper question to ask here is, "why would it be beneficial to adopt
> this sort of censorship?" Instead, however, jayjg has framed it as,
> "when would it be beneficial to engage in the type of speech that I
> wish to censor?"

Dramatic language doesn't strengthen your point. The purpose of
Wikipedia is not to provide people with a venue for free speech, but
to create an encyclopedia.

> This is exactly equivalent to having someone like Jerry Falwell argue
> that Hustler Magazine should be banned because, "When would it be
> beneficial for someone to read Hustler Magazine?" Framing the
> argument this way turns the discussion into a debate about the merits
> of Hustler Magazine instead of a debate about censorship. Any
> discussion about the hated speech then draws howls from the censors
> about how the speech that they want censored is horrible, horrible,
> horrible. No decent, right-minded person could ever think otherwise.
> Anyone who disagrees with the censor is therefore by definitiion
> indecent and wrong-minded. And the censorship expands from there.


Wow, what astounding rhetoric. "Censorship".

> We've already seen Slim Virgin put forward the following argument:
> > The problem with that, Joe, is that some members of the "community"
> > who've been particularly vocal on the linking issue are regular
> > posters to Wikipedia Review.
>
> Note the assumptions here:
>
> (1) Someone who merely posts comments on the censored website is
> automatically presumed to be behaving inappropriately. Following my
> analogy, that's the equivalent of "You shouldn't vote for Jimmy
> Carter because he gave an interview to Playboy magazine."
>
> (2) Such individuals are not true members of the Wikipedia community.
> They're members of the "community" in quote marks, meaning they're
> only PRETENDING to be part of the community, as opposed to genuine
> members like Slim Virgin. Again following my analogy, this is like a
> fundamentalist minister saying, "Jimmy Carter isn't a true Christian
> because he gave an interview to Playboy."

I'm sure you're also going to jump all over the post that divided the
Wikipedia community into a few small self-interested, aggressive
"admins and others" who were "murdering babies", and "the rest of us"?

> By trapping people in this loop of hate speech, you divide the world
> up into decent versus indecent people, and subsequent debate focuses
> on how to purge the indecents so that they no longer pollute the
> "true community."

Sheldon, when rhetoric gets this over-the-top, it's loses all meaning.

> The real debate, however, should begin by
> discussing the problems with censorship itself.

There's a certain kind of editor I run into that likes to fill
articles with nonsense, and then when it is removed cry "censorship".
They too seem to think that Wikipedia is a playground where they can
spew whatever is on their mind, rather than an encyclopedia, with an
actual purpose and rules governing what material is acceptable, what
is not, rules of behavior, etc.

>
> In another post, jayjg wrote:
>
> > WR is a site that contains "criticism of Wikipedia" in the same way
> > that Jew Watch is a site that contains "Scholarly Collection of
> > Articles on Jewish History" and "Focuses on Professionalism". In the
> > real world these things aren't so gray, though I understand your
> > interest in obfuscating them.
>
> In the interest of clarifying rather than obfuscating,

That would be a welcome change.

> let's note
> that Wikipedia has a detailed article about Jew Watch, with a link to
> its home page:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_Watch
>
> Personally I find Jew Watch much more offensive than Wikipedia
> Review, but I would never suggest that all mention of it should be
> censored from Wikipedia.

There's that straw man argument again. I've already said that in the
unlikely event that WR becomes notable, it would make sense to have a
link to the site.