User talk:Moreschi/The Plague

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thoughts? Moreschi Talk 15:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

First thought, be prepared to get accused of supporting the torch-wielding mob that is CSN ;).. My honest opinion.. it is very hard for NPOV to prevail. After working the issues that would lead to the ArbCom case "The Troubles" (which if you look at it, is really a perfect microcosm of what you state).. the problem is, usually if you know enough to qualify to write on it neutrally, you're likely going to have a bias one way or the other and it's VERY hard to write without that bias escaping. Both sides are guilty of that. There is also the "no factor".. IE, in discussion, one side can hold up consensus between other editors by being a loud enough and obstruction-oriented editor. More later when I digest this. SirFozzie 21:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


Ok, I've had a chance to write some of my thoughts on it, check it out User:SirFozzie/Nationalism SirFozzie 16:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I found your essay quite interesting. I agree that POV warriors are a big and growing problem (although I wouldn't say nationalism was necessarily the principal source of disruptive editors; those anxious to promote pseudo-science or far-left conspiracy theories account for at least as much tendentious editing). I think you make a good point in terms of why many POV warriors are attracted to Wikipedia; we're certainly a high-visibility site, and many readers assume Wikipedia to be more reliable than it is (due in part to the formal, encyclopedic tone of our articles), a weakness which is open to exploitation by those hoping to spread propaganda.
However, I'm not sure what can be done to deal with this problem, and I'm not sure what you meant by the need for "a small expansion in sysop powers". You're right that many admins, myself included, are reluctant to intervene in content disputes or to make rulings on content; the reasons for this are twofold. Firstly, the appearance of neutrality is key; since admins cannot intervene in content disputes in which we are "involved", many of us are extremely careful not to take sides in content disputes. Generally, when edit wars are reported to ANI or AN3, I issue stern warnings or short blocks to both sides, and move on; if I tried to resolve the dispute or to rule on content, I might be leaving myself open to accusations of "taking sides". Secondly, I don't have enough background knowledge in areas outside of my fields of interest to make any kind of definitive ruling on content. Yes, I can tell the difference between sourced, neutral editing and deliberate POV pushing, but it's rarely so clear-cut; often both sides are citing sources, and it comes down to a matter of wording or of undue weight, subtleties which I am hardly qualified to rule on in fields which I know little about. The same is true for almost all admins. A possible solution would be to promote more admins with specialist knowledge and editing experience in certain fields, but again, there might be neutrality issues (real or perceived) in their handling of conflicts. So I'm not sure whether there is a conceivable solution to this problem. WaltonOne 11:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Hadith?

I think leading off with this hadith is a bad idea generally; same would go for a Biblical verse etc. Also: I can't find a source for it online, the final sentence of it is unclear in meaning (maybe aids->helps would clarify the object? It sounds like "he aids his people" and then "commit injustice" just hangs out there). Oh, and it was enough of a distraction that I haven't even read the rest of the essay yet :-) -- 146.115.58.152 06:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. I like this quotation, and I can't imagine anyone really finding it offensive. Can't remember off the top of my head where I got it from, but AFAIK it's authentic enough. Moreschi Talk 09:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, but still, better English would end with "The nationalist is he who aids his people in committing injustice" if that is the correct understanding. -- 146.115.58.152 10:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Like the essay, and the conclusion. Have also been once been one of the torch-wielding villagers at CSN and am currently awaiting arbitration on a separate matter. And, yes, am also probably thought of by some as a religious fanatic. Just indicating my own biases, here. Given wikipedia policy about free editing, honestly don't know how to do anything though. One posibble solution might be to get together a few lists of generally nonpartial "experts" in various areas who might be qualified to judge the relative quality of sources and the relative weight they might receive. Given the rather fluid nature of wikipedia, particularly with editors coming and, more importantly, retiring too often and too regularly, like Yomangani recently, it would be hard to know if they'll be on hand to do so. That's the best solution I can think of though. John Carter 19:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Cure, now that WP:CSN is gone

Do you have any ideas regarding how to go about editing restrictions now that WP:CSN is gone? WP:AN/I seems too fast-paced, highly-trafficked, and such. --Iamunknown 05:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vaccine

Greetings. I'm wondering if you might join the effort to conquer the Israeli Palestinian "plague"? Even if only as an observer, perhaps you might give us (or me) suggestions on how to vaccinate (?) or otherwise deal with the problems in that topic area. Thanks muchly. Be well, HG | Talk 08:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your rapid and positive response! Given your effort to get a handle on the overall situation, you might find this interesting: WP:IPCOLL/BATTLE. Take care, HG | Talk 14:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)