Talk:Working Group on Internet Governance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think it is very nasty just to remove the whole "Criticism" heading: It has been there for several months, and removing it after an edit they do not like rather than cleaning up the writing constitutes vandalism. I suspect it is done by someone who does not want this criticism to be present. I enhanced the criticism, and I have studied this extensively. What is "POV"? Point-of-view? Well, criticism is naturally critical, which is the opposite of a positive view of the Working Group on Internet Governance. I think the removal of the entire Criticism heading was unjustified and ALSO motivated by a "POV." I strongly dispute deleting it. I propose that someone who is also against WGIG re-write it to make it seem more formal if you are not happy with how it was written. But to leave out any of these well-studied arguments would be very nasty, since they are all vital and reflect the current litterature challenging the WGIG.

The criticism section was placed back to how it was rather than removed. You just added it over the top of other information, removing important details.

As I said in the edit summary your edits might have some worthy content but it is clearly not written in an encyclopedic tone. For example:

"The Internet already works, and a politicization of something that requires only technical administration is unnecessary"

This is clearly written from your own point of view. If you can find some quotes and citations to back this up then by all means add them, but please avoid writing about your own feelings. Yes, the criticism section could and should be expanded, but by using the comments of professionals from appropriate journals (and the like). violet/riga (t) 17:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It was not written in an encyclopedic tone, but you may do that if you want. I am trained to write persuasive writing. I have, however, researched the issue extensively, and you are wrong when you claim that this was written from my own point of view, since I have read all of these arguments in litterature against it. They reflect all the standard criticisms. Do some research yourself instead of just deleting it, or rewrite parts of it in a more encyclopedic tone.

OK- if you want I will try to re-write it when I have time and find the appropriate references. However I think it would be wrong to just delete it and that way hinder people from having acccess to these vital criticsms. Also I am curious at what stance you take on this issue, however you probably won't tell.......

Things like "The WGIG can be seen as a reaction to this by authoritarian and totalitarian states who cannot stand too much freedom of private persons" is certainly inappropriate and cannot remain, and most of what you have written is too, as you say, "persuasive". I know about the WGIG very well, having written this article in the first place and done my own research for it. My personal opinion is that neither ICANN nor WGIG have a good enough system in place.

You may note that the criticism that exists there already is referenced with an external link. If you can back up your writings with such references then I will gladly help with ensuring it is neutral. violet/riga (t) 17:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote it to make it more formal, and I will find references.

That version is much better, thanks. I've tweaked it a little and hope that you agree that this compromise is a improvement to the article. The references will be great, too. violet/riga (t) 19:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I've edited the Criticism section to add in other information, and make it a more balanced analysis. That's why I've also renamed it Analysis, rather than Criticism. I've also added information from the Prepcom 3 negotiations and the Tunis Summit. I removed the bit on the Citizens summit, as IMO that has nothing to do with the WGIG, which ended its work in July 2005. I also added the official language on the mandate of the WGIG, and edited somewhat the information on the report, as that was not totally correct. Triniwebdiva 14:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)