Anthere,
I see that you are distressed by the recent
exchanges here over the Cassini-Huygens issue. I feel
I should write to tell you how I'm seeing the dispute.
I can say that, as an American, I feel no
particular attachment to Cassini -- I am sure all the
editors who have responded also did not even consider
that the way Cassini-Huygens was reported here could
be seen as pro- or anti-American. Because of this, it
feels odd to me (and perhaps others) that someone
would see our coverage and a) assume that pro-American
bias created the current article situation, and
b)consider the matter serious enough to raise on the
mailing list. I am not saying that you should not
have done so. But it did seem odd to me that the
issue was of that level of significance, especially
since your comments lead me to believe that the
content of the articles themselves was not partisan --
it was merely the naming of articles that gave the
appearance of bias.
I am happy to agree to rearranging article titles
in whatever way is most respectful of the ESA -- I
feel confident that the other editors responding to
you also have nothing but respect for the ESA's
accomplishments. I would say, though, that the
responses I saw to you were not aimed at diminishing
European accomplishments in any way. What I saw
looked to me (again, this is only my perspective) like
good editors who, like me, had never considered the
issue of bias in this area. These editors replied
with an explanation of why they saw the current issue
as reasonable -- I think it is because "bias" is such
a harsh word these days (it suggests that we have
consciously and intentionally pushed America to the
front) that these editors wanted to make clear that
the current article situation had been created for
reasons of space and organization, not because of who
made and/or launched what.
Anthere, I am sorry you have become upset. Stan
did say some things harshly to you, and I hope he will
apologize. But I do understand in a small way how
Stan felt -- it remains confusing to me that this
issue was major enough to take directly to the mailing
list. Matters of article naming are normally handled
on talk pages, and I still don't fully understand why
this should have been different. I recognize that, as
an American, I may be less aware of European concerns,
but as I said above, I am completely confident that
this situation arose entirely innocently. No slight
was intended -- after all, if I saw that the French
Wikipedia had redirected everything about Cassini to a
Huygens article, I would just assume it was for
organizational convenience, or because of common usage
in French, or perhaps simply because well-meaning
French editors didn't consider the American
perspective. I might leave a note on the talk page,
but I wouldn't write to a fr.wikipedia mailing list
accusing them of bias.
And whether or not you intended that tone, Anthere
(and I don't believe you did intend it), I do have to
tell you that I felt you were accusing us of
intentionally biasing the Wikipedia against European
space efforts. And I have to say, I find that
difficult to handle -- rather than asking why the
situation arose, or merely pointing out that it would
be better to name the articles in a different way, the
word "bias" appeared from the very beginning. It made
us defensive.
I like you, Anthere, and we've always gotten along
well. I'm confident we will continue to do so
indefinitely. I'm not writing this to attack you or
to make you feel unappreciated -- you have given more
to Wikipedia than I ever will. Your suggestions about
Cassini-Huygens should certainly be taken. But I feel
that, as a colleague (and perhaps even a friend?), I
need to say that your initial email on this issue came
across as angry, and I think it should not have been.
I find errors and holes in our coverage every day. I
could, if I wanted, see in some of these errors a bias
in Wikipedia -- a bias against Christians (of whom I
am one) or homeschoolers (of whom I am one) or
Swedish-Americans (of whom I am one). And perhaps
there are such biases. But it is more productive for
me, I think, to talk openly with people, to start
dialogue to educate others, to work quietly on my own
to make change happen, and to assume good faith as
much as I can. If I claim bias, I must wait until I
have established good communication with those who may
feel I am accusing them of intentionally doing such
things. You are free, of course, to do as you like.
Perhaps the situation is different for you. But I
would ask you (nicely, I do hope) to consider my
thoughts on the issue. My best wishes to you, as
always,
James Rosenzweig
en:User:Jwrosenzweig
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com