[Wikipedia-l] Helga again

[Michael R. Irwin]

Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> 
> At 03:16 PM 8/30/02 -0400, you wrote:
> > >I don't want to pick on Ed Poor, because I'm sure there are other
> > >examples I could use.  But I think Ed Poor believes a lot of false
> > >things.  I'm sure he thinks that I believe a lot of false things.
> > >Maybe I think he's a nut.  Maybe he thinks I'm a nut.
> > >
> > >Fair enough, but he and I are both polite and reasonable, and I find
> > >it hard to envision a situation where we couldn't agree on what an
> > >encyclopedia article should say.
> >
> >What higher praise could one get? "Polite, reasonable nut". I like that :-)
> >
> >But seriously, isn't there any way to configure the software so that Helga
> >could contribute only when logged in? That is, ban her IP address, but not
> >her user ID (if you know what I mean)?
> >
> >Mav and others have told me that Helga's been a thorn in the project's
> >side for a year. But I think the way you've responded has been
> >inflammatory. No offense meant.
> >
> >Instead of hitting her over the head verbally with phrases like "she's at
> >it again" and "removed NPOV text" -- why not take a more low-key approach?
> >It's working for me in the Arab-Israeli conflict articles:
> 
> We tried that. It didn't work.
> 
> >"Removed to talk" -- concise, unemotional: clearly the text hasn't
> >disappeared but will be found on the talk page in a moment.
> >
> >"According to ..."
> >"Some advocates claim ..."
> >"Although most scholars believe X ..."
> 
> And I refuse to write "although most scholars believe Hitler was always a
> Jew-hater, some people claim that the Jews declared war on Nazi Germany first",
> which is what we'd need to include Helga's theses.

So let someone else write it.

Do you contend that there are not people in the world who
have made, and continue to make, these kind of allegations?
I personally have seen/heard this kind of stuff from people 
in North America in person and on the internet.

Would you care to hazard a guess regarding how much of 
Helga's current attitudes result from restricted access to 
information during her early education or indoctrination?

I think all views and evidence someone chooses to present
belong somewhere in the Wikipedia.  Links can be provided
to articles on propaganda and epistemology for readers who
choose to learn how to critically assess what they are
reading.   The NPOV overviews should provide context prior
to linking to marginal or controversial materials.

As the Wikipedia expands in depth and breadth it should
be hard to use as a propaganda tool.  A few lazy readers
might be lead astray but most should be able to reach
close to mainstream conclusions based upon the evidence and 
analysis presented by the Wikipedia community at large.

I have no problem with NPOV overviews/articles as general
policy but this (the "NPOV god ontology" as "24" might
say) should not be used to gloss out (censor) 
the detail, all of which (IMO) should be available to 
interested readers.

I am not familar with Helga's efforts but they might make
a good test case to see if pushing extreme views to appropriate
leaf articles and providing appropriate access and backlinks
via NPOV overviews is a useful approach.   Likewise a
trial run of the formalized debate approach that someone
proposed.  Perhaps a means to protect NPOV overviews and 
opposing views from extremists would be necessary for this 
approach to be effective.

I am not necessarily opposed to banning non-collaborative 
extremists; if an effective means of including undiluted 
content originating with them can be identified, then perhaps
the project is better off without their assistance.  I suspect
that developing effective revision control that gives them
an incentive to collaborate will be more productive in the
long run than merely deleting their material and attempting
to run them off.

Incidentally, "24" predicted that some type of editorial
policy would become necessary/desirable as participation grew.
He/she seemed to take the initial stance that it would be unethical 
or immoral to assist the propagation of certain attitudes or
behavior.   Personally I feel censorship in any form is a
slippery slope towards totalitarianism and attempted mind
control which is best avoided entirely, if possible.  

regards,
Mike Irwin