[WikiEN-l] Odd

Wed Jul 13 01:20:42 UTC 2005

On 7/13/05, Geoff Burling <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2005, Skyring wrote:
> 
> > I've just spotted this on the talk page of a user: "I will revert all
> > edits to all articles on my watchlist by the LaRouche cult "editor"
> > Cognition, or any other recognisable LaRouche editor. I will do this
> > until either the LaRouche cultists are banned from Wikipedia or I am.
> > I don't much care which, since an encyclopaedia which allows crackpot
> > cultists to edit its articles is not worth writing for."
> >
> > Now, to my poor understanding, this user is threatening to revert any
> > edits made to any article on his 1000+ witchlist, regardless of merit,
> > so long as that edit is made by someone he identifies as a particular
> > sort of crackpot.
> >
> > What I know about LaRouche could be summed up in one word, but surely
> > Wikipedia is not going to be destroyed by the presence or absence of
> > one particular editor?
> >
> Well, I happen to know that a case came before the ArbCom concerning
> LaRouche followers who tried to add citations from their leader to a
> number of unrelated articles, which resulted in a decision that was not
> in their favor.
> 
> And I seem to remember that one of the editors involved in limiting
> their attempts to flood Wikipedia with pro-Larouche citations was Adam
> Carr. These wouldn't be Carr's words, would they?

They would indeed. However, who said them is essentially irrelevant.
What is important is the attitude behind making such a statement.

> I suggest you do more research: the ArbCom concluded these people
> were POV-pushers, & a danger to Wikipedia. I doubt you will find much
> support criticizing the person wrote this, no matter how ill-tempered
> that editor might be.

I'm not for a moment trying to support LaRouche POV pushers. Seems to
me that the system is working as intended to limit their penetration
to the extent allowed by agreed wikipolicy i.e. not a lot.

What bothers me is the fact that long established editors seem to get
to a point where they can't continue any longer and go off the rails
and off the rules. Adam Carr isn't the first to do so in the six
months or so that I've been here.

I mentioned earlier that his "ultimatum" sounded like a teenager's
statements just before an unsuccessful suicide attempt. A plea for
attention. This in itself is a fairly serious thing to do, indicating
that the person making such a statement has reached the end of his own
resources and needs external help. But I know for a fact that Adam has
his own wikisupport network in place.

If these sorts of dramatic exits are common on Wikipedia, then I
venture to suggest that something should be done to reduce their
recurrence. I don't want to feel in a year or so that I can't go any
further and that Wikipedia is doomed and that I'm following in the
footsteps of a large number of burnt-out editors.

Regardless of my own differences with Adam (and those have almost
always been over attitude rather than content), he made a valid point
about a system that allows vandals and cranks to have a significant
impact. If the cost of defending against people who dedicate their
existence to pushing a POV is a string of burnt-out editors, then it
may be too high, especially as nobody here is being paid for their
time. Can we really expect unpaid volunteers to put themselves under
heavy and unrelenting pressure?

-- 
Peter in Canberra