[WikiEN-l] Test case: policing content

Sat Mar 19 18:10:56 UTC 2005

A short time ago there was an extensive debate on this list-serve about the 
nature of our dispute-resolution process, and about the difference between 
violations of behavioral rules and content rules.  Apparently, most people 
believe that the available processes are adequate to the problems we 
face.  Well, here is a test case and frankly, I do not know -- based on our 
current policies -- what to do.

Over the past couple of weeks there has been vigorous debate at the 
Capitalism article concerning the introduction.  The debate has mostly been 
between me and Ultramarine on one side, and RJII on the other.  Two 
policies are relevant: NPOV and NOR.  RJII insists on writing his own 
definition of capitalism.  He has provided NO evidence of any research, 
beyond looking up the word "capitalism" on the OED.  He consistently 
provides what he calls a "marxist" definition of capitalism that 
Ultramarine and I insist is not Marxist, and he refuses to provide a 
source.  Most recently, he posted this comment:

>Explanation... I used the term "typically regarded" so that stray 
>definitions by malcontent college professors don't count.

My understanding of this is that he is flagrantly disregarding the basic 
encyclopedic principle that articles should be based on research.  He uses 
"typically regarded" (and, in other instances, "common knowledge" or 
"obvious") to explain why he does not need to provide a source for his own 
definition of capitalism, and to explain why it is intrinsically NPOV, 
despite my and Ultramarine's vigorous objections.  To this he now adds that 
he is dismissive of definitions provided by scholars!

But my problem is not just with RJII, it is with the Wikipedia community, 
and the community's apparent inability to deal with such problems.

Ultramarine and I made several compromises with RJII, but we have reached a 
point where there can be no compromise (you can't compromise with someone 
who makes up a definition, refuses to cite sources, and disregards the 
research other editors do, and thinks that precisely because we can provide 
a source, which comes from a scholar, that the definition is therefore 
invalid).  On many days we have simply taken turns reverting and reverting 
-- and as some here have observed, the result was that I was blocked one 
day for violating the three revert rule.  So the first mechanism -- "Most 
policies and guidelines are thus enforced by individual users editing 
pages, and discussing matters with each other" -- is not working.

I posted a request for comment, and there has been no response.

What else can I do?  I will not go to the mediation or arbitration 
committee for two reasons.  First, I am not concerned with any possible 
violations of behavioral guidelines by RJII, I am concerned only with his 
violation of content guidelines.  Second, I do not view this as a personal 
dispute between he and I, and I do not want others to characterize this as 
a dispute between he and I.  I am not defending my own version of the 
introduction, or my own definition of capitalism.  I do not need someone 
else to help us come to a compromise definition.  I do not want someone 
else to start investigating my own behavior (for the record, with the 
exception of the multiple reversions, I have been at pains to avoid any 
personal attacks.  But my point is, my own behavior should not be an issue 
here.  I will gladly voluntarily refrain from editing this article if that 
would solve anything.  But the problem is not the fact that RJII and I do 
not agree on a definition, the problem is that he consistently refuses to 
follow basic policies).  What we do need is someone who will either make 
RJII follow our content policies, or who will block him from the article.

The introduction, a month ago, was not perfect.  But it did introduce the 
article in an NPOV way.  Today it is a shambles, and the discussion on the 
talk page gives no reason for anyone to believe that it is going to get 
better in the near future.

Is this the process we want to encourage?

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701