Sarah wrote:
All I'm arguing here is that we shouldn't try
to exercise
publishing power without responsibility; in other words, we
shouldn't be bullies. If this were some newsworthy public
figure trying to delete accurate, relevant, well-referenced,
notable material about himself and threatening us with legal
action, I might agree that we should revert him, argue with
him, and ignore the threats. But this person we're ganging up
on here is a non-notable, private individual who has done no
harm other than to make a fool and a nuisance of himself on
Usenet. Weve inserted his real name into an article; we've
attached it to a slur; we've reverted him trying to delete
it; we've protected the page so he can't delete it; we've
ridiculed him when he contacted this mailing list for help;
we've reverted the deletion that an admin tried to make; and
now we're going to ban him for making legal threats. Which
part of this exactly isn't bullying?
I'm against anything that smacks of bullying. We can afford to be
gracious.
But it's difficult to write an article which is ABOUT people who label
others with a slur - WITHOUT ourselves repeating or endorsing that slur
(or seeming to).
I'm giving this matter so much attention, because it strikes at the root
of Wikipedia's credibility. To really be taken seriously, we've get to
start getting serious about making corrections that stick. There's no
other way to unsure that articles have a "stable, accurate version".
The "kooks" newsgroup is only a notch or two above the holocaust deniers
and anti-Semites. (They get one notch merely for not taking themselves
seriously :-) We take great pains to distance Wikipedia from ENDORSING
the claims of holocause deniers and anti-Semites; while, also, due to
our neutrality policy, we also managed to avoid condemning them.
A really neutral article, which is also a well-written one, would NOT
generate any doubt in the reader's mind about whether the contributor(s)
to that article were for or against any particular point. This is the
touchstone of neutrality. (Can you tell my position on the Holocaust
from reading the above paragraph? If so, then my bias has leaked out -
which is okay HERE, but would not be okay in an article.)
The situation is also parallel to some of the "damaging quotations"
lists that pop up in political articles. Like Bushisms. It's really hard
to write about Bushisms without adopting the POV that the type and
number of malaprops PROVE that "Bush is an imbecile". (Which is exactly
why anti-Bush folks like to publicize them.) The trick is to quote the
Bushisms, describe / analyze them, but NOT endorse the anti-Bush POV.
This is especially hard because the chief reason for listing them is to
INSINUATE the idea that these verbal mis-steps are typical and
representative - and thus sufficient in themselves to condemn the
persone. (The Ann Coulter article consists MOSTLY of damaging
quotations.)
We need to re-think Wikipedia policy. We're getting big; let's not get
grumpy. People will look up to us, because we tower over all the rest:
we have more articles than anyone else, and we're still growing fast.
But to earn their respect, we must be accurate AND fair.
In many places we must take a step back, discover the bias inherent in
an article, and DESCRIBE it as a point of view INSTEAD of leaving it in
a condition which makes it look like Wikipedia was endorsing it. (Same
problem with global warming, the truth of one side is taken as a given.)
Sorry to ramble. I'm short on time this month. Please don't just pick
this apart, but try to find the essence of what I'm saying. Help me to
help you.
In haste,
Uncle Ed
To make matters worse, the only reason you don't
take his
legal threats seriously is that he's made them before and
nothing came of them. In other words, you're not taking him
seriously because he's ineffectual and powerless. That's
exactly when we should back off, not put the boot in further.
There's nothing worse than a powerful journalist who uses his
or her position in the manner described above, and we've all
become people who have, in many ways, just as much power (but
without any of the infrastructural restraints journalists
have), which means we have to exercise self-restraint and be
decent. What's wrong with being decent all of a sudden?
Sarah