[Wikipedia-l] Re: Inflammatory rhetoric (Ark)

[Michael R. Irwin]

Daniel Mayer wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday 13 August 2002 08:24 pm, Ed wrote:
> > I looked some of Ark's comments on Talk:Infanticide, and he sure seems
> > upset about something. I'm going to see if I can engage him in dialogue,
> > and see if I can figure out why he feels he must use language like the
> > following snippets:
> >
> > * my lazy opponents ... you lazy bums ...
> > * I don't accept the judgement of idiots. ... I am dealing with morons ...
> > living in denial * I'll say what conclusions can be supported from the
> > evidence (which I don't feel the least need to spell out ...)
> >
> > Perhaps he (she?) doesn't realize how hurtful such words can be, to other
> > contributors.

Perhaps.  I think it is morely likely Ark has experienced how hurtful
such attitudes can be and feels turnabout is fair play.   How can we,
the Wikipedia community, ask he/she to forgive and forget past
transgressions 
and focus on the friendly assertive dialogue so necessary to building a
correct
consensus view regarding article content and phrasing; if we are 
incapable of ignoring current trangressions or heated hurtful rhetoric?

> >
> > Ed Poor
> 
> Ed please try, but be advised that I have already spent /many/ hours trying
> to do the exact same thing (although you do seem better at this type of thing
> than me).
> 
> I have asked nice; that didn't work

In an anarchy he/she is as sovereign as we are.

> 
> I have pleaded; that didn't work

See above.

> 
> I have suggested that his rhetoric is harming the project; that didn't work

Perhaps his/her personal assessement is different.

> 
> I have stated that his rhetoric is a violation of our etiquette policy; that
> didn't work either

This is incorrect.   

We have suggested guidelines, not enforceable policies.
The single exception to date (that I am aware of) is the posting of
material
perceived by others as physical threats.  If Ark has read the guidelines 
then your statement merely diminishes your credibility or the Wikipedia
community's.   Either you do not know what you are talking about or the
community has failed to accurately articulate the governing guidelines.

Hmmm ... that sounds a bit like 24's early wild allegations, before
moving on to productive personal attacks, flame wars, and ultimately
temporary banning .... erroneously mutating into a long term ban.

The guidelines explicitly state do as you please, serene in the prospect
of others editing your work to suit themselves and eventually the 
community at large.

The sole remedy laid out by the existing guidelines to poor material
is editing.  Banning is not mentioned for the heinous crime of being in
flagrant disagreement with others.

> 
> I have even stated that if he did not play nice and continued to sap the
> energy of other contributors that his actions will have to be reviewed by the
> mailing list and he may be blocked from editing;

Exlicitly threatening he/she with the nonexistent cabal.

> 
> That warning obviously hasn't been headed.

Implying that you have authority to issue such a warning.

> 
> I personally give up and say we should issue one final warning and then test
> the block user function if that warning is also ignored. This person is not
> at all worth loosing any valued and long time contributor over. Wasn't the
> fact that we tolerate stuff like this (the amature and persistant POV stuff
> Ark does, not the rhetoric) the reason why Michael Tinkler left the project?

Retaining long time contributors is a poor reason to block other
contributors.
This approach guarantees built in bias and makes a mockery of the NPOV 
guidelines we currently embrace.  How can we present all views,
appropriately
tagged and merged into an overall NPOV presentation, if only material
from 
the current majority view is available? 

> 
> If it means loosing somebody like Ark to keep somebody like Michael, then I
> say we should have some, but limited tolerance for the Ark's of the world.

If it means losing newcomers to keep long time contributors, then I say
we
should tolerate some stodgy appeal to long time authority and seniority,
but
stop far short of a closed union shop.   After all, we already have some
contributions from the long time regulars.  Better to get some fresh
thought
and blood into the project occasionally.

Best of all would be to improve our methods such that strange esoteric
(to long time regulars) views or incorrect materials are not so
threatening 
to the perceived quality of the Wikipedia and the reputation of
Wikipedians
associated with the project.

regards,
Mike Irwin
aka mirwin