[WikiEN-l] Posting old message - formatted this time!

Fri Oct 3 16:54:04 UTC 2003

I thank Ray Saintonge for reading - and rereading - my lengthy comments, 
despite the lack of copyediting for typos, and the formatting problems that 
I can't seem to figure out (I've only been having trouble with the margins 
on the Wiki mailing list). Although he understood all my points, the 
assumptions of his counter-arguments are unrealistic.

His comments, however, highlight my need to further explain why there's no 
way that removing RK would do anything to bring the Israel-related articles 
under the influence of the idealized set of contributors whom Stan had 
described.

First, consider the central cause of all flame wars. It's important to note 
that by and large, the more controversial an article gets on Wikipedia, the 
more partisan the core group of contributors becomes (e.g., the Roman 
Catholic sex abuse scandal, abortion, and Communism - just to name some 
recent and never ending flame wars). This is an iron-clad relationship that 
few who contribute even scantly to Wiki articles on history and politics can 
deny. I acknowledge that other flame wars are far less prolonged and 
vicious. While patterns of more manageable disputes over parallel the ones 
over Israeli-Palestinian neutrality, the others are less prone to zero-sum 
games (see the Wiki article on game theory if this term’s unfamiliar – btw, 
sorry for habitual jargon of the social sciences). They usually far less 
emotionally charged, and/or the structure of the antagonists is not 
polarized.

I acknowledge that polarized factions is not unique to the Israel-related 
articles. There is polarizing left-versus-right political squabbling all the 
time on many articles, but the stakes are not as great personally to users. 
Disputes are channeled toward something narrowed (such as a particular 
policy), rather than an 'us versus them' struggle. For example, consider the 
recent disputes over privatization, which I’ve been mediating. Lir and 
Daniel Quinlan hold irreconcilable views on the subject: one brings in an 
anti-government dogma, the other an anti-capitalist one. But there was no 
personal animosity expressed on the talk page (they didn’t even cross paths 
– just channeling their mixed feeling though me on the talk page).

Jews worldwide, however, are haunted by the past and ever-vigilant when 
criticism of Israel might be imbued with anti-Semitism. Conversely, 
Palestinians have suffered declining living standards in the context of 
Israeli heavy-handedness, displacement, and marginalization in their 
homeland and in any setting of any refugee camp. These two collective 
identities are not ‘irrational’ or ‘insane’ when individual channel those 
frustrations toward hating the enemy; and we should expert their champions 
outside the Middle East to quarrel in every forum in which they are both 
present at the same time.

On other controversial articles, emotionalism can run high too, but the 
structure of the disputes is rarely so polarizing. For example, there is 
often conflict over a minority view that challenges an analysis, the 
balance, and/or the tone of a Wiki article. However, you don’t inherently 
attract two equally-large group with fixed identities pitted against each 
other.

Among the conflict-prone articles on Wikipedia, perhaps only abortion 
attracts the same level of polarization and bitterness as the Israel-related 
articles. But this is largely a single article, along with a handful of 
others that go along with it, not close to receiving the level of attention 
garnered by the hundreds of articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian 
disputes.

Within the freedom of Wikipedia (which opens the doors to partisans), the 
fanacticism and polarization of the two sides on the Palestinian question, 
the partisans can gravitate toward the zero-sum conflict demanded by their 
fanatical – and often quite understandable considering where they are both 
coming from - worldviews. Thus, we'd have almost daily Mid East flame wars 
regardless of whether or not RK's around.

Yes, theoretically RK would be less "effective in presenting [his] view[s] 
than a large number of moderates." But the “moderates” are always going to 
be marginalized - with or without RK: the large share of extremists on both 
sides will always make more noise than the "silent majority" (not that I 
like to borrow Richard Nixon's '68 campaign slogans). A new RK can arrive 
any day. Even worse, since the majority of the core contributors are also 
partisans, RK's absence would just shatter the workable balance of power 
between the opposing forces. Yes, we would like to have a scholarly, 
congenial lot rather than what we have, but we’re to going to get it. And 
yes, Stan and Ray are correct that the flame wars have driven off a number 
of users; but this was the only likely outcome anyway.

In that regard, I do admit that Ray has good reasons to express concerns 
over my "[endorsement] of bully tactics and intimidation." I firmly agree as 
much as anyone with Ray that "failing to confront these people does not make 
the world better or safer." RK must always be prodded to ensure that he’s 
reasonably acing in line, but not so constrained that RK can’t be RK. That's 
been the status quo for over a year, and it's been working.

However, we should consider lax enforcement policy in light of this context 
- with the caveat that RK is reprimanded promptly each time (and with so 
many enemies, he’s under enough scrutiny). The Israeli-Palestinian articles 
should be regarded as an exception, calling for a measured enforcement of 
Wiki policy (and every institution doesn’t enforce all laws and guidelines 
to the letter – just consider all the arcane, non-enforced laws on the books 
right now everywhere). There should be a tacit, unstated understanding that 
the habits and customs among their core group of Israel-related contributors 
are going to be more a function of the emotionalism and fervency of the 
real-world Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and not the conventions of 
Wikipedia as a whole. However, I’m not saying that RK deserves preferential 
treatment. Just don’t ban him, and let’s to more to acknowledge that he’s a 
indispensable pillar of the Wiki community.

I'd also point out in closing that the ideals of the Wikipedia project would 
favor my laissez-faire, less elitist, and more freedom-oriented approach to 
this matter. Little heavy handed intervention from the top (by developers 
such as Erik), combined with the free-for-all squabbling from below, has 
been working. Impartial experts need not dominate the Israeli-Palestinian 
articles (which would be Stan’s elitist ideal) because the struggle and 
fervency among all the partisans winds up forging good, neutral articles 
after a lot of noise has been made. The problem with little expertise and a 
lot of opinion is rectified, not caused, by stalemated edit wars among the 
partisans - right now we have a lot of horrible articles that could use some 
antagonism to whip them into shape. RK and his edit wars are part of the 
solution, not the problem.

_________________________________________________________________
Frustrated with dial-up? Get high-speed for as low as $29.95/month 
(depending on the local service providers in your area).  
https://broadband.msn.com