User:Honey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is likely to be history in a very short time (I hope in a good way). It results from various discussions concerning the Simon_Wessely page on Wikipedia, and follows this short Talk section at Talk:Simon_Wessely#Done.3F_A_message_to_both_sides.:

I very nearly published a lengthy ramble on the subject of this page and the unexpected making of the fork live mid-discussion, then thankfully thought the better of it at the last moment. It's on my user page and I hope those involved in this debate will read it nevertheless: it contains messages for JFW, Guy and also OneClick, who mailed me directly, a call for a collaborative approach, and a call for the disclosure of Prof Wessely's direct involvement in the article to clear the air. I couldn't bring myself to include it here due to its length, and its conflict with my own attempts to defuse the insanely inflamed debate about this article by pleading for focused debate on content; but I also couldn't bring myself to not write it.

I'm still of the opinion that the existing Simon Wessely page is strongly biased in favour of the somatic school of psychiatry, implying that Wessely's views are universally accepted as an explanation for the perpetration of symptoms in ME, which just isn't the case: much informed dissent from this view exists even in its stronghold, the UK, and this should be properly represented. But I'm also still of the opinion that a consensus of mutual respect needs to be re-created here first, in order to ensure that a neutral and stable article results that properly reflects the very real academic controversy over Wessely's work. I've tried to do this, but been worn down in the process (yep, I'm ill). The result of the current situation will be repeated cycles of vandalism, page locking, and an escalation of hurt on both sides of the fence. I'm therefore increasingly of the view that it may be time for the key contenders with entrenched views on both sides, who all now have much to gain in kudos by "winning" this phoney war, to consider stepping aside, and a process of arbitration with new Wikipedia editors be considered. As someone who has ME and doesn't believe history will be kind to the results of Prof Wessely's theories concerning the perpetuation of the disease in sufferers (see above), I'll also fall on my sword and stop contributing if this will result in a more neutral article. I predict at least a rest for Christmas. Honey 20:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Done? A message to both sides concerning the Simon Wessely pages.

Honey 19:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This isn't likely to make me any friends.

What's going on here? Other than today's contribution from User:81.103.218.16, all I can see is two opposing factions increasingly slinging mud and itching for war, and now suddenly the fork being moved back mid-discussion. We're a collection of people who are either afflicted by this appalling and life-changing disability, have loved ones afflicted, are medics whose careers by oath are sworn to lessen the suffering and care for those afflicted, or Wikipedia editors who are supposed to be pursuing a level-headed and sensible goal of neutral articles in a cool-headed non-partisan manner. Yet mostly what I see here are verbal attacks, counter-attacks, tactical moves between factions to undermine progress, and plain rudeness. I'm unsure if this is connected with Jimmy Wales' involvement with this article making it something of a point of principle, but it shouldn't be affecting the article in this way, and if it is, I hope to goodness he doesn't like what he reads here from both sides. These talk pages and the archived ones are a tale of shame, and if anyone sees them as an account of the triumph of editorship and reason, or a great game, then that leaves one ardent supporter of Wikipedia here who's argued excitedly about Wikipedia's future over closed-contribution encyclopedias deeply disenchanted at the prospects of neutrality from consensus.

Do people only see things in black and white? Or is this just all people bruising for a fight? I hope that my contributions will show I've done my very hardest to deflate the atmosphere surrounding this debate in an attempt to create a consensus that might just end up with a reasonably neutral page (read: "grey exists, let's express it"). But it appears that few really want me to bother, and vicious advocacy on both sides rules the day. This makes me feel like giving up. Should this happen to others too, Wikipedia will then be left with a wildly oscillating Wessely page, a phoney war, constant editorial locking, repeated hijacking, and 15 Talk pages. I'm beginning to think that this is what some on both sides might want, one to raise the profile of controversy around Wessely, the other to raise profiles or pin the article as a point of principle within the Wikipedia community. If that's the case, I'll leave you to it.

To OneClick:

You mailed me directly: I hope you understand that I'll be addressing your points here, as I believe in openness of debate. I hope you too will join in the discussion openly here rather than via email: this would demonstrate to those in opposition that you're willing to support your comments for entry into Wessely's article with citations and evidence in reasonably phrased open discussion, and some of the points you make about Wessely's work (many of which I believe are worth making) will enter into the canon.

You characterise my contributions here as an attack and campaign against you: I've read back all of them, and can only see my comment that I don't like your lobbying technique as being possibly interpreted this way - should opinion be attack. I was speaking about the efficacy of your original article becoming permanent Wikipedia content. I stand by my statement: writing that way didn't and won't work here, and a more negotiated position will lead to a more balanced article that will survive intact. It would certainly be better than what we currently have, which I hope is still your aim too.

You say in your mail that you "have never attacked Malcolm Hopper in any way"; if so, I apologise for the implication that you're not friends, which is as far as I went: my mistake.

You asked me to confirm that the article's now been published (fork made live) without the changes I was talking about drawing up with Vortex and Guy: I can indeed confirm that this seems to be have been the case at the time you mailed me (although it's still of course editable, unless it gets locked), and that I wasn't aware of this until I came back here. This surprises me as much as you.

To JFW:

"Done"? I can't for the life of me understand why you chose to make the fork live at this critical time unless this was tactical. "Outside editors" would, as you know, be perfectly capable of finding the fork. Other contributors here have been ready to discuss with me changes we may deem constructive and show they're open to such changes. I'm grateful to User:81.103.218.16 for today's changes, but the article as it stands is still strongly WP:POV by consensus, as even the most fleeting glance at the debate on these pages shows. That's unless you characterise any who disagree with it as biased and yet yourself impartial, or, as you previously implied, that only medical professionals like yourself are qualified to comment - in which case we need to include the many I know who would very strongly disagree with the current write-up.

I'm aware of course that the page can always be edited: the point is that yourself, Guy and others, by dint of your experience and relationships on Wikipedia hold power and some influence, and therefore responsibility to set an example, and this smacks of a sudden forced hand at a critical time. A newcomer has to learn how the community works; how to edit pages; what's acceptable. Many of those who can most contribute to this article will be, like me, quite seriously ill and this will further prolong the time required to get involved and help. Yet these talk pages leave the strong impression that not only does Wikipedia not want contributions by those most involved in Wessely's work by misfortune of illness, but that it characterises a priori any such involvement as biased by default. I hope you can now indicate a welcoming patient sense of inclusiveness that positively encourages contributions here from professionals and patients alike.

I'd also suggest strongly that the fork is placed on ice as before, as a signal to others that this isn't an attempt to preempt changes.

To Guy:

I'm happy that you've expressed more openness to revisions to the page in discussions here. You've however slung your fair share of inflammatory language over the fence, along with anecdotal commentary on a subject which by your own honest admission you know little about, but in which you now have a Wikipedian interest as comments on your user page show. I really think you should rein this slash and burn policy in now, and set an example of friendly impartiality if you choose to remain active on this entry, regardless of how you perceive others to be acting. Politeness and courtesy always defeat rudeness. We had a constructive thing going on up there.

To me:

Why didn't I just make the changes? Because it was clear to me that in order to do so, I'd need to be scrupulous in citations and evidence, as the onus of proof was being firmly placed on any departure from the fork, rather than the other way round, even where unjustified assertions were present. When I got here, it appeared that the mood was set that any departure from the fork was going to be immediately reversed as biased because of its history. I've felt all along that in order to stop the article's ping-pong, a more open and friendly attitude needs to be restored between participants, and so building consensus vital to justify the time spent on doing the work. Probably a misjudgement on my part as to how effective I could be at this and the effort involved.

So:

I call on OneClick to contribute openly and constructively here rather than privately to individual bodies concerned, in order to secure a balanced view within the article.

I call on whoever received the communication from Professor Wessely which prompted many of the changes to publish this communication openly here, to remove any doubt about the issue of Wikipedia's guidelines about autobiography and reassure the community that the content is independent. This is in the light of other private communications being publically published here. Sorry if I've missed this content somewhere.

For the record, I like William Pietri's article at the top of the discussion: he says he took an hour or so to write that, and I took several to write this, along with a lost night's sleep, so may be absent for a while now. But as a passionate supporter of both the value of open collaborative projects like Wikipedia, and the cause of those afflicted with a terrible medical condition, I hope you'll understand that one-line rejoinders or unreasoned slapbacks to these comments won't help me to believe that any progress can be made here. I'd really like to contribute, but the process is costing me dearly in terms of health, and I simply can't continue for my own sake unless I see some positive flag-waving.

If this is a parting message, I'd like to at least quote again William, to both sides: "As a normal writer, strong views are a great help. But as a Wikipedia editor, they impose a special burden: because you are obligated to be fair to all sides, you must be especially careful that your views don't distort the article".

Honey 19:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)