On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 9:18 AM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
There are many regrettable, and some actionable yet unactioned, abusive things in Wikipedia history logs. Attempting to track them all down and mete out preventive corrective action is an interesting idea, but impractical.
The idea that the article must be flawed because people are rude or abusive around it is not entirely novel, but I believe that having read the set of articles in depth, and being somewhat familiar outside the Internet with the state of scholarly research on the Armenian Genocides, that the articles are at a point of acceptable balance. The mainstream consensus conclusions are described in detail, and the Turkish revisionist interpretation is described fairly and accurately within the confines we use in other areas and in policy for undue weight to minority or fringe opinions.
If there are ongoing fights worth intervening in, in terms of abusive editing there, take it to ANI. I haven't got the time to sift around and see if it's worthy of admin attention to stomp on abusive editors this week. The article product is ok - if we need to deal with user behavior, please take it to ANI and provide detailed examples.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Oh really? It has even been in front of arbcom twice. This particular user had been on ani before. It did not do a lot of good...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
I am sorry but whoever is going to process these abuses will have to find this evidence himself or herself. When I present the community with evidence regarding this time and after again it had been completely disregarded. Users I complained about back then are currently blocked. In addition it is rather pointless for me to collect such evidence. At 'best' I can get the abusive users blocked indefinitely. Some of these users have four or more sockpuppets.
This article is anything but balanced. Please this is obvious in the wording among other things. Let's at least acknowledge that there is such a problem.
For example at a glance I only see 4 .tr sources used of which one goes about the Dink murder, an unresolved and ongoing legal case. There is plenty of original synthesis and misrepresentation of a current issue in the 21st century where we have access to a lot of info. In that paragraph the "Later, photographs of the assassin being honored as a hero while in police custody, posing in front of the Turkish flag with grinning policemen" phrase for example is pure propaganda. A wider angled photo and video of the same scene was published later on that week/day establishing the back ground flag was in fact a poster by TEMA, a non-governmental organization that exists to combat soil erosion. The poster in question can be found nearly everywhere. You are welcome to read about it.
While I am not much knowledgeable in the historic events, I am quite up to date with current events. There is this much blant misinformation on a current event, I am more than skeptical how accurate the article is covering historic events that happened on early 20th century.
Article is very one sided, while it makes a great effort to cover the murder of Dink, various assassination of Turkish diplomats, bombing of airports by ASALA is not mentioned at all.
On a related article, I was denied to use Turkish governmental sources to cover attacks by ASALA even though the people were not disputing factual accuracy of the material covered. ASALA is an organization that engaged in assassinations and bombings in support of an "Armenian Genocide recognition" which left 46 people killed and 299 injured. People removed sources and left {{fact}} template in its place. They have campaigned to remove such sources.
Such is behaviour on a non controversial matter. No one, not even ASALA denies that these attacks happened. I cannot imagine the level of misinformation going on with controversial issues such as the ones over historic events of 1915.
- White Cat