[WikiEN-l] When goals conflict: There is no "right" for everyone to edit Wikipedia

Mon Feb 21 10:02:41 UTC 2005

--- Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com> wrote: 
> Rich Holton writes:
<snipped>
> > 2. Banning users due to their professed beliefs or
> associations
...
> > However, the second is also beyond question -- in the
> > negative. There is no way to reconcile such banning of 
> > contributors by POV with Wikipedia's mission and culture.
> > How would we be able to claim NPOV when certain groups
> > are not allowed to participate?. 
>
> In general, I agree. For most people, in most groups, this
> would be true.   Yet some people are members of groups
> whose goal is that which you described in issue 1 - part of
> their goal is to make such threats!  If someone is a member
> of an organization whose very goal is to make threats - and
> eventually carry them out - then (in these cases) wouldn't
> we be obligated to ban such users?
> 
> How can we say that it is wrong to make threats, let alone
> harm people - but then allow Wikipedia to be used as a
> forum to help strengthen Nazis and other groups who do make
> threats as policy, and who do carry out violent acts?
> 
> There is no God-given right to use a Wiki or work on an
> encyclopedia.  We have a rather open-minded editorial
> policy, and it does not constitute censorship.  Thus, we
> should not allow "contributors" whose admitted endgoal is
> to intimidate, or to incite violence.  If we scare away the
> blacks, the Jews, the gays and the Catholics by opening up
> this encyclopedia to violent hate groups, then what are we
> left with?  We will end up limiting the free speech of the
> many other people who will certainly be driven away, and we
> will be damaging our own reputation for n#o good reason.

I would argue that it is quite sufficient to do what we normally do -- examine
the conduct of each individual editor, his actual edits, and react accordingly.
Guilt by association makes me very uneasy. I believe it's quite unwise -- and
unnecessary -- to interpret the wider goals of a group with which an editor
affiliates, and block them preemptively.

Clearly, we know from experience that people with extreme views are much more
likely to be badly-behaved and ignore policy than others (particularly when the
groups they associate with calls for POV-pushing at Wikipedia). So is there any
reason to bother with these people? Yes. To build an NPOV encyclopedia, it is
helpful to attract contributors from a wide variety of viewpoints -- the
diversity is healthy and helps us maintain neutrality. I posit that Wikipedia
would be better off with a well-behaved, NPOV-writing Neo-Nazi than without;
could such an individual exist?

-- Matt

[[User:Matt Crypto]]

___________________________________________________________ 
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com