<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hello,<br>
<br>
Apparently I cried loud enough to bring the Hebrew-speaking Wikipedians
to discuss the issue I raised yesterday. Actually there were two
interesting debates on he-wp, one about me and the other about the Anat
Kam affair (I don't know how many of you heard of it, but it has also
become a Wikipedian affair). I am translating the debate about myself,
partially because of my egocentric nature :-) but mostly because it is
a follow-up to my long message yesterday. Please tell me if you'd like
me to translate some of the Anat Kam debate. BTW, I joined the debate
twice.<br>
<br>
<b>The English Wikipedia - An Anti-Israel Propaganda Tool</b><br>
<br>
ONE: I bring here the words of Dror Kamir who is known to be a
left-wing person, simply unbelievable.<br>
[<i>cites one of my Hebrew messages yesterday, which is basically what
I wrote to this list in English]</i><br>
<br>
TWO: This is hardly new. See this and this on my blog. [<i>brings links
to a blog post that describes more or less the same things I
experienced. The post was written on 29 Dec 2009, so I should have
noticed it while preparing for my talk on Bangalore. This oversight of
mine deserves flogging.</i>]<br>
<br>
ONE: Yes, I saw it also here on the Hebrew Wikipedia debate page [<i>that's
another version of the aforementioned post, apparently you should add
some more lashes to my punishment</i>].<br>
<br>
THREE: The fact that Dror is left-wing doesn't matter at all. There is
a huge difference between the lunatic vociferous left that took roots
in Europe (but also in the Americas and even here in Israel) and the
sane left, which examines reality cautiously and by reasonable
criteria. Actually, I wouldn't use the term "left" at all in reference
to that lunatic left, it would just blur the fact that they they are
weird. They are usually youths under 30 addicted to the junk-food of
opinion journalism.<br>
<br>
FOUR: Actually, I was amazed by this page
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active_sanctions">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active_sanctions</a>),
this page
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Drork">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Drork</a>)
and some others. Beyond the issue in question, it is scary to see the
monster of bureaucracy, enforcement, punishments, expulsions, bans,
committees and tribunals that has emerged there on "Wikenglish".<br>
<br>
TWO: Anyone wants to establish [our own] ArbCom [Arbitration Committee]?<br>
<br>
FIVE: Wouldn't it be better to annihilate the servers hosting the
Hebrew Wikipedia? It would be quicker and more humane.<br>
<br>
FOUR: I'm not sure. I mean, I see advantages to such committee, as some
of you know [<i>links to an article he wrote on he-wp about ArbCom on
the German and English Wikipedias and how it should be implemented in
he-wp</i>], but there are hazards too. Like anything good, it can get
out of control. I don't see a principle problem with imposing bans on
certain users to do certain things in certain articles. For itself, it
could have resolved all kind of past crises quite easily and it would
have been less harsh than blocking a person.<br>
<br>
SIX: Should such a committee be established, it should rule in
controversial issues. In what concerns imposing bans of this kind or
another, it may recommend, but the final decision should be left at the
hands of the admins. Anyway, what happens on the English Wikipedia is
indeed worrying. I don't understand how come none of the thousands of
activists there protests.<br>
<br>
TWO: The problem with such a committee is that it takes its toll. It is
not only articles that can be diverted. In their manic pursue of
justice on the English Wikipedia, they forgot they were not qualified
as judges; hence it is easier for interested people to divert them. I
have never asked for such authority [as SIX suggested] and I wasn't
appointed to exercise such authority. I don't want it and don't want it
to be exclusively at the hands of the admins.<br>
<br>
SIX: Let me get it straight, it is okay to completely block a person,
but wrong to prevent him from editing a certain limited subject?<br>
<br>
TWO: Blocking is a preventative measure. I block a person when I see
his actions cause damage, and assess that blocking is the only tool I
have to stop him (if I reckoned there were another tool, I would use
it). On the other hand, ruling that a person is free to edit on
Wikipedia except in a certain subject, actually means a declaration
that this person's opinion in this subject should be ignored, even
though he is still a member of the community. The considerations
required for weighing such ruling are numerous and grave, much more
than the simple consideration whether or not a person causes damage.<br>
<br>
SIX: I didn't mean a permanent removal from a certain subject, but a
temporary one. For example, I would have been glad if someone removed
me from the discussion about the Elad association [<i>an Israeli
right-wing NGO highly involved in conflicts between Jews and Arabs in
Jerusalem</i>] before it got out of hand, but that's me.<br>
<br>
TWO: Temporary is even more problematic - it gives an unfair advantage
to those holding opposite views. Once you introduce too many "levels"
between "fully qualified user" and "banned from the community", you
introduce considerations that the normal community member, and also, as
a result, the normal admin, is not truly able to consider. We are not
judges. Most of us never delved into philosophy or law.<br>
<br>
ME: [<i>After receiving a letter saying: you must write something in
this debate</i>] I was asked to respond, so I hereby publish my
response: This is the fifth year for me to be engaged in
Wikipedia-related activities. I believe this project has taken the
wrong course and diverted from its objectives. This is why I don't
write anymore on the Hebrew Wikipedia, nor in the Arabic Wikipedia. I
also write very little on the English Wikipedia. My recent harsh
comments there were due to the fact that things have gone too far. I
could have pulled my hands from anything related to Wikipedia, and I
even considered it several times in the past year, but it is not that
easy. I turned into persona non grate on the English Wikipedia due to
complaints of pro-Palestinian editors that I attacked them personally.
These editors did not not come with clear hands, as they were blocked
in the past due to similar complaints directed at them. Nevertheless,
their complaints were acknowledged. Late Arie Kaspi, may he rest in
peace [<i>a local publicist whom I admire</i>] once wrote that a
factory needs the workers to declare a strike every now and then, in
order to shake-up the management and keep the factory away from
decadence. Wikipedia might need such treatment. In any event, since I
am active in several free-content projects within Wikimedia Israel, It
is important to me to clarify that all I said and will say about
Wikipedia is my own personal view with no relation to Wikimedia Israel.
Due to my harsh criticism, I asked not to represent Wikimedia Israel
abroad anymore (a duty I had to fulfill in the past), so that there
would be no doubt that my criticism is my own. I will continue to
promote free-content projects within Wikimedia Israel, as long as the
association is interested and as long as I have something to contribute.<br>
<br>
SEVEN: If most of the world is antisemitic, there is no reason why the
big free encyclopedia that it writes be different. Haven't we got tired
of trying change the world not to be antisemitic? When the Egyptians
shoot Sudanese on the border fences (I've seen some bodies with my own
eyes), while we let them into our country, and discuss their rights, we
are condemned as human rights violators. When rockets are fired at us
from Gaza, an event that every enlightened cultural nation would react
to with more than a siege, while we handle it with kid gloves, then
something is allegedly wrong with us. Leave this idea of convincing the
world with reason, it is bound to remain this way. I am more and more
convinced in what Rabbi Bar Yochai said: "It is common knowledge that
Esau hates Jacob" [<i>an ancient saying known only to someone who took
Jewish religious studies</i>].<br>
<br>
EIGHT: Most of the world is not antisemitic. There are countries where
the government offers indoctrinated antisemitic education, like Egypt,
but that doesn't make the majority of the world population antisemitic,
not at all. There are also communities that consume media which is very
unfair to us, but when I lived in such a community, it was clear to me
that the media is not successful in turning the most of the public
antisemitic. Stop this defeatism. Anyone who is concerned about the
public opinion vis-à-vis Israel and about fighting antisemitism, should
cool down, and use his brain. There is a lot to do in order to
communicate our position to the majority of the public (not just to
some few idiots). Good Luck.<br>
<br>
It goes on, but I'll stop here, because I think you get the idea. I
don't know what can be extracted from this debate, but it seems
interesting. Tell me what you think.<br>
<br>
Dror<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
בתאריך 13/04/10 20:18, ציטוט Dror Kamir:
<blockquote cite="mid:4BC4A773.1090501@bezeqint.net" type="cite">Hi,
<br>
<br>
First of all, an apology - ever since I came back from Bangalore I've
been overloaded with work and projects, and didn't have enough time to
follow the CPOV events and mailing list. I truly regret that, and I
hope it'll change in the near future. Having said that, I can't avoid
using this mailing list today, since I arose the curiosity of some of
you, when I published a call to boycott Wikipedia on FaceBook (a
personal call, I should emphasize, before my colleagues at Wikimedia
Israel eat me alive). I published some explanations to my friends
there, but they were in Hebrew, so they weren't very useful to most of
you. Last remark before telling the story - I have been so much
involved in Wikipedia and Wikipedia-related projects, that I've become
quite emotional about them. To those of you who see Wikipedia as a
subject of research, it might seem strange, and I can't blame them for
that :-)
<br>
<br>
Several months ago I returned to the English Wikipedia and looked again
at articles related to the Middle East. I think it was part of my
preparations to the Bangalore conference, but I'm not sure this was the
trigger. This way or another, I found out that there was a strange
pattern of edits in articles such as "Israel", "State of Palestine",
"Palestinian territories" and other related articles. There was a group
of editors who persistently and quite forcefully introduced a political
thesis into the aforementioned articles. There were several
characteristics for these edits:
<br>
<br>
1. Excessive use of the name Palestine, while blurring the distinction
among its various meanings. In many articles, it has become unclear
whether the name Palestine refers to a geographical region, to a
historical political entity, to a future state, to the Palestinian
Authority and so forth.
<br>
<br>
2. Excessive use of terms like "occupied", e.g. in the article about
the Golan Heights or the Palestinian territories, where previously it
was agreed to use more neutral terms like "controlled". That was not
merely a change of term, but also overuse of this term over and over
again.
<br>
<br>
3. Describing the State of Palestine as a fact on the ground and
drawing a straight line between the British Mandate of Palestine and
the Arab State of Palestine. The idea is basically to instill the
notion as if Israel was just a temporary stage in the history of the
region, while the "real" State of Palestine that existed in the past
was about to reemerge.
<br>
<br>
Politically-wise, this is a sensitive time in this ongoing Middle East
conflict. The Palestinian Authority appealed to the International Court
of Justice asking for recognition as a state so it could formally
accuse Israel in conducting war crimes. In the UK the pro-Palestinian
organizations calling to boycott Israel are more active than ever. For
my naked eyes, it seems too much like an anti-Israeli campaign of a
group of Europe-based Palestinians or pro-Palestinians. On Wikimedia
Commons, BTW, I already had some fierce battles with pro-Palestinian
editors who tried to upload problematic fiels and hinder projects of
Wikimedia Israel.
<br>
<br>
I won't get into the political discussion that evolved between me and
this group, and I beg you not to assess my judgment regarding the
editors' motives or the legitimacy of their edits. In fact, this is
the minor issue here. What really bugs me is what I found out about the
way Wikipedia is currently working.
<br>
<br>
1. The English Wikipedia developed a judicial system. There are laws
and tribunals, but they act in a way would amaze even Kafka. There is a
decision by the Arbitrary Committee that any editor who makes
problematic edits to ME-related articles would be banned from making
further edits about the subject. While the Arbitrary Committee meant
well, in practice it means that every admin can ban an editor.
Wikipedia cherishes anonymity. It is very hard to understand who
complained about you, what his motives are, and why his complained was
endorsed by the certain admin. Asking to lift the ban requires a long
bureaucratic process.
<br>
<br>
2. If one dares to complain about another editor, he might find the
accusations turned around at him. Basically it is all about forming
cliques. I you have your clique, you are quite immunized, and you can
even revert accusations and penalties to those who accuse you.
<br>
<br>
The whole treatment of content has become very bureaucratic and
imbalanced. The idea that information should be sources has been
brought to absurd. Practically anything is regarded as reliable if you
can bring a name of an article that says so. I often pointed out to
serious problems in the logics of a certain articles, and was answered
that I have to bring articles that state otherwise in order to make my
claims valid. When I brought such articles, I was often answered that
my source was not serious enough, too pro-Israeli, a primary source
while WP favors secondary sources and so forth. I often found myself in
a strange position where I could not argue with a person, because I did
not have access to the book he mentioned.
<br>
<br>
Actually WP has abandoned most of its primary values - it is no longer
open to all. One must have an access to big academic libraries, be very
skilled in conducting debates and have huge amount of time to conduct
them. NPOV and No Original Research have become idle principle.
Practically any problematic term or theory can be used, as long as you
can find some source and interpret it in a way that would enable you to
present it as a previously uttered idea. The idea of reaching
informative articles through confluence of information and exchange of
views has failed. It is all about imposing one's view. The person who
imposes his view successfully is the one who has better relations with
the judges, namely the admins.
<br>
<br>
Okay, I think I wrote quite a lot, and used quite harsh words (I warned
you about my emotionality). I'd be happy to hear some relaxed wise
comments and insights.
<br>
<br>
Best wishes,
<br>
Dror
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Cpov_listcultures.org mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Cpov_listcultures.org@p10.alfaservers.com">Cpov_listcultures.org@p10.alfaservers.com</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org">http://p10.alfaservers.com/mailman/listinfo/cpov_listcultures.org</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>