[Wikipedia-l] Bias in the west and such media

[Stevertigo]

>The flames have been going on for months.  The discussion needs to
>happen so the flames can be put out.  If they spread to the mailing
>list, that is not an excuse for forestalling the discussion and allowing
>the current bad situation to continue.

John, youre doing a couple things here: 1. using *the rhetoric* again...
avoid it. Its not useful. Translating the above: Flame wars are avoidable if
there are rules agreed to regarding conduct. There ought not be limits on
discourse for fear of causing people to be offended. 2. Youre putting all of
this on Jim. Knock that shit off.
He may be able to work the server, redirect the Wikipedia URL back to
bomis.com, erase every piece of data ever written to the server.... but hes
not God, and he cant make things all better for you at the wave of a hand.
This thing works here on one thing only - that is: Interest. If he starts
dictating terms right and left, then there will be dimished interest from
the public; and hes avoided doing this, for these reasons precisely. An
analogy, would be; A nuclear-armed country *may* have severe means at their
disposal, but what good would come of it? If I read you right, John, you
cross the line in continuing to rag on Jim for simply knowing and staying
the course, and his role.

>I quote here the learned Professor Noam Chomsky, in his book "The Common
>Good", published in 1998.  In context, he wrote this paragraph about how
>the media in the USA (and many other parts of the world) operate:

>    The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly
 >   limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively
 >  debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and
 > dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free
 >   thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the
 >   system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the
 >   debate.

You can't argue with Rabbi Chomsky. Unless youve got something other than
the plain truth in mind.

>It has driven away several credentialed contributors that I
>know of.  And this fact prevents Wikipedia from gaining much academic
>esteem.

This may simply be due to perception. I remember RK criticising SL and Danny
for calling him on his outbursts, by saying essentially: "If *we* dont make
a stand here, *we'll* be "forced out" just like in Newsgroup X." Aside from
the rich psychological study material in that statement alone, it does
represent a victim mentality, or an aspect of human powerlessness that makes
people think that they cant have a place. What Jim is really against is the
setup of a team-sport mentality with several people here vs several people
there. It belies the nature of sysopdom, as well, as were all human and even
sysops will take sides, as they often do now. The assertion that Jim (?)
made that sysops must avoid argument is idealistic and does not represent
the reality.

>You (Jim) always seem to come down on the side of those who are pro-Israel
>and/or populist, without regard to the merits or facts.  That is your
>bias.  As long as you decide who gets to play on your wiki, it will
>reflect your personal biases.

I dont know this. I'm just stating my cause and interests intelligently
here - without rhetoric (but perhaps a few double-entendres, however) Before
I get back into it with anyone; being ganged up on is not my idea of fun.
Like I told you before, I can see why Jim banned you - not because of
politics at all, but because of the spite you show for other people, and a
kind of desperation in your tone that belies your demonstrated capacity for
reason. = SV