[Wikipedia-l] [Wikipedia-1] Helga again

Wed Sep 4 02:10:51 UTC 2002

Welcome to the mailing list Helga.

Helga Hecht wrote:
> 

> 6. It's because she can't see context that the rest of us have to judge and weigh what she says in terms of the big picture, and then make sure that
> it gets appropriate mention -- but sometimes not at all is appropriate.
> 
> Jules
> --------------------

Helga, I think you should be aware that this is part of a larger issue
that 
the mailing list has been attempting to address.  How do we
appropriately
include all views, summarize concisely and accurately for casual
readers,
yet still provide comprehensive detail for the interested readers to
form their own conclusions?

Many of us find it useful to examine specific cases for insight or
inspiration on how to attempt to improve our approach.  I hope you
will keep this in mind as you review the archived material.  The 
discussion is not intended as an attack or indictment of you or your
knowledge and contributions although some of it could be interpreted
that way; if one were not aware of the larger issues being addressed
via illustration with specific situations.

If you search the archives regarding "troll", "24", "mirwin", "Michael
Irwin", "Ark" or "infanticide" you will find further discussions
involving
similar issues.   How do we include minority views or strong claims for
which there is little detailed acceptance or evidence viewed as credible
while building a world wide reputation for accuracy, reliability, and
truthfulness that our readers can depend upon?

I have learned a lot regarding scholastic research, academic 
credibility, evidentiary standards, etc. from Dr. Kemp over the
last few months.  I would urge you to consider her criticism of
some of your contributions as a constructive effort to maintain 
Wikipedia's reputation for being able to substantiate claims 
presented as factual truth or "history".

As one of our few professional scholars Dr. Kemp has perhaps
shouldered an unduly heavy burden in fact and source checking
and attempting to discuss our desire for accuracy and credibility
with the general community of new contributers.  To me it appears
that appeals for assistance occasionally trigger a "lynch" mentality
which should not be attributed to Dr. Kemp.  This has been under
extensive discussion as we attempt to learn better ways to develop
a project consensus and propagate improvements through out the
participating community and the Wikipedia.

We have similar controversy underway regarding some scientific
theories.   Some people would like to present their understanding
of the natural processes governing our universe as "truth" or 
"fact" or dismiss more widely accepted theories.  Obviously we
have a responsibility to present the best available scientific
consensus appropriately.

I agree with you that all information potentially belongs somewhere 
in the Wikipedia but I also agree with many others here that believe 
it should not all be given equal weight or front page billing with more
widely accepted theories or scientific "fact".

> 
> I just started the subscription and the first thing I read is this message, which seems to be in answer to some other message, which I do not know.
> 
> J Hoffmann Kemp probably means well.
> 
> However
> 
> 1a.I have to reject even the hint of the "not particular anti-semitic" and replace it with "not at all".

Excellent!  I am not certain that I could meet the "not at all"
criteria myself but I also attempt to be fair and open minded 
with individual people and regarding politically sensitive issues.

> 
> 2a.I reject also "My take is that she pretty
> much discounts anything that distracts from or in any way disproves her
> assertion that non-Jewish Germans were the biggest victims of WWII."
> 
> I have never said anything like this.

I believe Dr. Kemp was defending you here against
impressions that might have been given by other people
such as myself.  Please accept my apologies.  I am
glad you have confirmed her defense of your character.

> 
> 3a. Have never said anything like that either.
> 
> 4a. I see and know a lot more about things that she could ever read in her school books. Her books tell onesided stories, war propaganda, but not the full truth.
> 
> For example : There was a Daily Express Newspaper declaration March 1933: Judea  declares War on Germany. This militant Zionist group has in 1997 been verified by other religious Jewish groups http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/ and http://www.netureikarta.org/ (wikipedia article: Neturei Karta) as cause of WW II.

Surely not the only or primary cause of WWII?

The history I learned in U.S. schools spoke of many factors
and causes all the way back to WWI and before which involved
entire economies, continents, and governments.

While I can see how you might classify my education in
the U.S. similar to:  "Her books tell onesided stories, war propaganda, 
but not the full truth.", I harbor similar suspicions regarding your
own educational access.   Dr. Kemp, however, is a scholar with much
deeper, broader, access to source materials than anything I have ever
studied.  Further, part of her professional responsibilities include
estimating or making judgements regarding the relative reliability of
often contradictory historical sources.  Her long term success and 
reputation as a scholar will depend upon her skills in successfully 
determining and presenting the possibilities and probabilities that 
we call "history" from primary and secondary sources.

How shall you and I come to some mutual agreement on how to
present our (I would accept Fred Bauder's summary as a better
summary of my understanding than I can currently write.) opposing
views of history; if we cannot usefully rely on Dr. Kemp and 
other professionals attempts or methods to evaluate the relative 
weights of various evidence?

How shall we include all views such that as additional evidence
or new contributor's views and sources arrive we can tweak the
Wikipedia to keep the presentation of all views, summaries, and
cited substantiating evidence accurate and useful to most, or
better, all readers?

> 
> One has to wonder why any of this is being hidden ?

Some have expressed the view that as an encyclopedia attempting
to summarize all human knowledge and point to further detailed
information (act as a general reference and starting point) we
cannot give everything equal weight.  Somehow we must treat the
most important or general knowledge as most useful and important
to the general reader and point to further more detailed subject
material for those who wish further information.

Others, including myself, have taken the stance that there is no
near term limit on the breadth, or depth as long it does not effect
our perceived reliability for the general reader.  I think most people
in my faction have or will acknowledge that packaging considerations 
will limit the depth and detail to the media available such as: cd, 
dvd, or online access.  Whether the available convenient one piece
packaging will continue to grow in density and size as fast or faster
than the full online Wikipedia is probably determined more by how
fast and large the available community of contributors can grow
in effectiveness.

This is why many of us feel it is important to learn how to
work together as effectively as possible and continue to 
improve our individual ability to contribute productively.

> 
> 5a. If wanting to get answers and find out the truth  is bordering on obsession, then I guess you could call it that.
> 
> However I believe I see the complete picture more  clearly than she does.

This is quite a strong claim.  May I inquire as to the basis for this
belief?

Are you a professional scholar in a related field?  

As an educated layman in the U.S., my exposure to WWII is
quite limited: routine high school studies, television documentaries,
random
magazine and books read on casual interest or whim, the occasional
usenet
debate etc.   Still, to me the preponderance of evidence available
leaves 
me with the impression that the powers involved in this world wide
conflict 
would not take an isolated statement from a specialized media outlet
seriously.
Just as President Bush, or Saddam Hussein, would probably dismiss a
declaration 
of War from the New York Times or an Iraqi newspaper.  If an additional 
U.S.-Iraqi occurs it will not be because a few influential hot heads 
publish a statement demanding it.  The underlying or root causes are 
numerous and widely understood and talked about.  It would be misleading
in fifty years for Wikipedia to publish that the initial cause of the
possibly impending U.S.-Iraqi war was a newspaper story demanding that
the Iraqi or Saudi people attack the U.S., even if this could be shown 
to have been influential in recruiting individual 9/11 terrorists.
This would imply a single writer and publisher triggered a war that
various tensions, economic, and political interests have been building
towards for decades.  Very misleading, partial, presentation even if 
factually correct.  If selectively so, by design, then the very essence 
of propaganda.

> 
> 6a. Editing or correcting etc is fine.
> 
> Control by censorship, keeping basic truth out, not mentioning it at all, leads to a warped picture. It becomes a lie.

I would agree with this to some extent.  I would also like to see
participation preserved even if it appears to "unbalance" our quantity
of material available in the depth of details.   Other people have
raised 
the excellent point that we do not want to allow partisans of any kind 
to present a misimpression of the relative importance through sheer 
weight of participation.

A question I have brought up previously, for which I feel we do not yet 
have an adequate policy answer is:  How do we preserve as much accurate
detail as contributors wish to provide while providing a balance Neutral
Point of View (NPOV) summary or presentation for casual readers?

> 
> I guess, one has to ask the question, does wipedia want to be like any other commercial enterprize, that
> only tells you, what the general public wants to hear
> or is there some commitment to be truthfull ?

It is my impression that there is a firm committment to remaining
a non traditional activity which is not unduly influenced by 
commercial enterprise.   We expect and hope that our valuable product 
will be utilized by commercial enterprises so that it is widely used
and disseminated.   The creation process, however, is not currently
dominated by commercial or academic organizations.

Since we have a committment to truthful presentation of all relevant
knowledge, information, sources, etc. we have been grappling with
how to best reach a consenus on how to present the multitude of various 
versions of "truth" that people create, allege, discover, etc.

I look forward to your continuing participation in helping 
us resolve some of these detailed and general issues in ways
that are beneficial to our project, contributors, and readers.

Sincerely,
Mike Irwin