Although your test case promises to be very difficult simply due to the
great volume of edits, I am glad we have it and it has been accepted. I hope
you will spare some time to present some evidence on the matter now that the
Arbcom has accepted the case. Especially useful would be edits requesting a
source for information or edits removing material that did have a good
source.
Fred
From: "steven l. rubenstein"
<rubenste(a)ohiou.edu>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:58:20 -0500
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content
d. wrote:
actionforum(a)comcast.net wrote:
What would you say the marxist definition of
capitalism is?
I'd say it's off topic for this list.
Well, I didn't self righteously bring it to the list as if someone I
disagreed with was obviously wrong. As long as we are agreed the issue
of which side was "correct" or acting in good faith is
NOT obvious.
-- Silverback
Well, this perfectly illustrates why I believe the "Capitalism" case is a
perfect test case -- in my opinion, even better than crank theories in
physics which really are relatively easy to deal with.
Some people have suggested that if someone keeps putting unsourced material
on the page, the solution is to delete it. Well, this is the first
solution to any problem at Wikipedia. Let's say it is the second, third,
thirtieth, or three-thousandth solution -- basically what Ray Saintonge
wrote. The reason for any disciplinary action is
1) this process is not working -- after a month of deleting the same
material, it becomes a battle of wills
2) to give serious and well-intentioned editors some support and relief.
Both of these characterize the issue at "Capitalism."
And Silverback's own e-mails to this list provide further evidence of the
problem. He continues to insist that something like "private ownership of
the means of production" is the "Marxist" definition of capitalism, and
now
insists that I provide my own "marxist" definition! This list serve is not
the place for this discussion, which has already occurred on
the Capitalism talk pages. Suffice to say, "private ownership of the
means of production" is simply not, in no way, the marxist or "a" marxist
definition of capitalism.
And this is the whole point of the "cite sources" and "verifiabilty"
policies that Silverback disparages. Of course it is possible that I am
wrong about the Marxist definition -- but if I am wrong, then whomever is
providing the "marxist" definition should be able to provide a source or
citation.
For Silverback to disparage these policies, and insinuate that it was
self-righteous of me to bring this problem to the attention to the list, is
too absurd. His behavior mimics that of RJII's, and is the kind of
behavior that has no place here at Wikipedia. Our work must be
verifiable. If someone asks for a source, provide it. Like RJII,
Silverback not only scoffs at providing a source, he continues to insist
that the definition is right, that it is I who has to provide the source,
that I am self-righteous, that the policy is trivial ...
At what point do we characterize this behavior as trollish?
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l