[WikiEN-l] me and my three reverts

Wed Feb 2 16:00:15 UTC 2005

Thanks Jimbo -- you understand my view perfectly.  I fully support the 3 
revert rule in principle, what I question is only its mechanical, automatic 
application.  I know that Dante was being fair when he blocked both me and 
Jalnet2.  I guess that what I should have said is, it would have been just 
as fair not to have blocked either of us.

I am, however, sorry that Tony Sidaway so capably manages to combine 
ignorance with arrogance.  I say this in good faith: Tony, before putting 
in your two cents (not adjusted for inflation), please check out the 
history of the conflict.  I have been working on the Race article for some 
time, and I can tell the difference between someone who knows what they are 
doing and someone who does not.  Jalnet has for the past two weeks been 
pushing an agenda which, basically, involves highlighting the views of two 
psychologists in the introduction of the article.  Why did I revert the 
word "some?"  Because keeping it rendered the article inaccurate.  I 
explained to Jalnet why it renders the sentence inaccurate.  I also asked 
Jalnet to provide any counter-examples, and he couldn't, or wouldn't 
provide any.

I know that at this point someone like Cheese Dreams will point to this as 
evidence that I am arrogant.  But my insistence on deleting the word "some" 
is not based on any high opinion I have of myself.  It is based on the fact 
that I have gone to the library and read a number of articles recently 
published in major peer-reviewed journals, and I have read books on the 
topic.  When Jalnet2 insists on making uninformed claims, he is not 
insulting me -- he is insulting the hard work of scores of evolutionary 
scientists, and dishonoring the integrity of Wikipedia, which depends on 
editors doing some research.

You also mention my deleting the Rische article reference.  You neglect to 
mention three salient points.  First, Jalnet2 put information from this 
study into a section on populations and clines.  It simply did not fit into 
that section.  There are other sections where this information would 
fit.  By the way, Jalnet2's style of editing, although shared by many 
people at Wikipedia, is very bad style and I think we should all discourage 
it.  His style is, whenever he sees a claim made he doesn't like, he puts 
in a counter-argument immediately following the claim.  If everyone 
practiced this, we would not have articles, we would have Talmudic 
debate.  Now, I love the Talmud, but I do not think it is a good model for 
an encyclopedia article.  Yes, we must represent all views -- but not in 
the format of a "Crossfire" debate.  The Race article has different 
sections for each major view.  Jalnet2 is not interested in putting forward 
useful information; he is instead interested in disrupting the presentation 
of views he does not like.

Second, Jalnet2 was using a press release as his source, which is not a 
very good source of information on something as complex as population genetics.

Third, Rikurzhn had already put this information into the article, in the 
appropriate section, with a citation to the 2005 article from the American 
Journal of Human Genetics!!

If Jalnet put the Risch citation back into the article, in the same place 
he put it yesterday, would I delete it again?  You bet I would!

I have a long enough record of compromising with many editors.  But maybe 
my idea of compromise is different from yours.  When I make a claim like 
"Everyone says ..." and another editor claims "No one says ..." my idea of 
a compromise is not to just change it to "Some say ..." and leave it at 
that.  This notion of compromise is not going to help us produce quality 
encyclopedia articles.  My idea of compromise is more like this: if an 
editor makes a different claim than I do, I provide my source and ask him 
or her to do the same.  We discuss the nature of the two sources, and make 
sure that we are each interpreting them properly.  Then we discuss how best 
to represent these views, however diverse, in the article.

Now, I know a good deal of the literature on race, human evolution, and 
population genetics.  And there are people working on the race article who 
know more than I do (like Rikurzhen).  Rikurzhen and I have argued, but we 
have always been able to reach compromises that improve the article.

When someone comes along and asserts claims that to my knowledge have no 
support whatsoever, and then refuses to provide adequate sources, and I am 
fairly confident about my research, I will delete what they have 
written.  Tony, you can call me an edit-warrior all you like.  But let me 
tell you: your success at Wikipedia depends largely on your understanding 
of our policies, your willingness to follow discussions on talk pages in 
order to get some context for your understanding of how the article came to 
reach its present state -- and, most important of all, your willingness to 
do some research and assert claims only when you know what you are talking 
about.  Tough, but that's how it is.

Steve

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