Stephen Gilbert wrote:
--- "Michael R. Irwin" <mri_icboise(a)surfbest.net>
wrote:
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?
I'm afraid you'll have to give some examples of where
the person in question has been provoked and/or
verbally abused before anyone takes those suggestions
seriously.
Stephen G.
How unfortunate. I do not intend to scour an
everchanging medium for examples of past transgressions.
Particularly since people often perceive things differently
and I might not recognize something that appeared provocative
or abusive to Ark anyway. If I did find something that
appeared so to me, it is very possible that it would be
merely dismissed as vaporous by the original provocateur
anyway. I have participated in professional seminars where
pychologists and communications specialists demonstrated to
the class through lab exercises that most people perceive
themselves differently than others do.
I have been impressed by the quality of overall participation
here at Wikipedia and doubt that most Wikipedians would
intentionally give offense over trivia. Of course, most
regulars do not consider editing content trivial. We also have
many random dropins from newcomers who are not always easily
distinguishable from regulars. Also, mistakes will happen
occasionally even with the best of intentions and feathers
will get ruffled.
I suggest we be careful in implementing your suggestion
of mercilessly gang editing Ark's material in question,
lest Ark see hordes from the mailing list descending upon
his/her work as "provocation" to further uncivil behavior.
Some participants here on the mailing list have noted that
Ark has contributed productively, if a bit abrasively, in the
past. They might take it a bit personally should Ark use
the opportunity provided to get banned.
It might also lead them to suspect our processes can be
improved a bit. 24's banning certainly raised my
suspicions in that direction quite a bit.
I volunteer to try to help Ark find some substantiating data,
opinion, suspicions, etc. for the controversial material
while also attempting to discredit Ms. Hoffman's and others
sources and materials .... not note, Ms. Hoffman.
Fun stuff! It is not often one acquires an opportunity
to attack academia's material in one last desperate attempt
to help truth triumph over the weight of historical
neglect, outright revision or wishful thinking.
regards,
Mike Irwin, aka mirwin