| Revision as of 07:58, 19 September 2006 editDbachmann (talk | contribs)227,714 edits →[]'s comments on Indians: this is just wikistalking.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 23:07, 28 January 2007 edit undoBostonMA (talk | contribs)7,570 edits →Consideration for others: + encyclopedist userbox |
| (74 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
__NOTOC__ |
|
]!]] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{user:BostonMA/Nav}} |
|
This is the user page for BostonMA. Please do not edit this page, except where invited. You are always welcome to have a discussion with me on my user ] page. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
---------- |
|
|
|
:--shamelessly stolen from ]. |
|
{{Inclusionist}} |
|
|
---------- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Consideration for others == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Misplaced Pages readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." |
|
== Useful Links == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{boxtop|align=left|Userboxen}} |
|
=== ] === |
|
|
|
{{User:BostonMA/Userboxes/Encyclopedist}} |
|
|
{{User:Feureau/UserBox/freespeech}} |
|
|
{{User:Wintran/Userboxes/Wrong}} |
|
|
{{User:Disavian/Userboxes/RC Patrol}} |
|
|
{{User:Omicronpersei8/Rcmistakes}} |
|
|
{{User:Disavian/Userboxes/VandalProof}} |
|
|
{{India Quizmaster|12}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{boxbottom}} |
|
=== ] === |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
==Concerns== |
|
|
|
|
|
===Industrial Sabotage of Misplaced Pages?=== |
|
|
|
|
|
Industrial Sabotage is a well documented phenomenon. Industrial sabotage involves the intentional disruption of the business activity of an enterprise. The motives for industrial sabotage vary, but include labor management conflict, extortion, political conflict and commercial competition. It is the last two motives that concern me here. To make it perfectly clear, I do not accuse any individuals or organizations of committing sabotage against Misplaced Pages. However, it would be naive to assume that industrial sabotage could not occur against Misplaced Pages, that no organization would have the motive, or that no-one would stoop that low. |
|
|
|
|
|
Without making any accusations, I would point out that a commercial enterprise, if its revenue were sufficiently threatened, might have an economic interest in disrupting the development of Misplaced Pages. Disruption motivated by commercial competition might take the forms of constant "churn" of the content of Misplaced Pages, in an attempt to prevent stable, high quality versions from emerging. It might also take the form of encouraging personalized conflicts with editors, for the purpose of diverting energies, driving editors away etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
Again, without making any accusations, I would point out that governments, both in their historic practice, and in their proclaimed intentions, have conducted "information" wars. Misplaced Pages is in a significant position to influence the views of large sections of the world population. A key enhancing factor for that influence is the image of Misplaced Pages as an open forum, where mis-information may be easily corrected by anyone. This image promotes the perception that the information in Misplaced Pages is verifiable and ideologically neutral, or must rapidly become so. How could such attributes not be true if anyone is free to make corrections? A government, wishing to surpress critical information, or to add "spin", would thus have an interest in creating an atmosphere within Misplaced Pages in which frustrates editors, thereby reducing that actual corrective actions upon the content of Misplaced Pages without sacrificing the appearance of an Encylopedia that anyone can edit. |
|
|
|
|
|
Neither industrial sabotage from commercial sources, nor from governmental or political sources, need express a consistant point of view. In fact, the promotion of a consistent point of view would likely be a hindrance to such sabotage. Rather, the personalization of conflicts, and arbitrariness and inconsistency in the application of policies would be more useful. Such approaches could both be used to prevent the emergence of stable, high quality articles, and to frustrate editors to reduce the breadth of influence of the general population upon the content of Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
===What to do?=== |
|
|
|
|
|
While it be naive to assume that industrial sabotage could not occur against Misplaced Pages, that no organization would have the motive, or that no-one would stoop that low, it would be a foolish mistake to jump to conclusions, to assert that any individuals or organizations are engaging in such sabotage without proof. We must assume that editors are acting in good faith, even if we believe those actions to be counter-productive. What is needed is to strengthen the habits of all editors of working toward conflict resolution through dialog. Patient discussion should be used to explain the danger to Misplaced Pages posed by frequent resort to administrative actions, reliance on super-majority, intimidation etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
One area that I believe ought to be treated with particular sanctity is the use of NPOV and Disputed templates. When bone-fide disputes exist, either with regards to facts or to neutrality, then NPOV and Disputed tags can warn the public not to assume that an existing text is undisputed. I believe it ought to be a right for any user to place NPOV or Disputed templates on articles, where bone-fide disputes exist. This right ought to be protected, and the placement of such tags on articles with such bone-fide disputes ought not to be used in any adminstrative actions against the editors adding such tags. |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
==Proposals== |
|
|
|
|
|
This section contains proposals for agreements that I have made for working out editting issues. I have copied them here from the talk pages of ] because the latter pages tend to get both cluttered and archived. Anyone is invited to add their sig to a proposal. However, please do not add comments to this page. If you would like to comment on a proposal, please do so in my ] page. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
----------- |
|
|
<b>Proposal for moderating the edit wars</b> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes page is official policy of wikipedia. The very first paragraph on disupte resolution reads in part: |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it." |
|
|
|
|
|
That point dovetails with the Misplaced Pages philosophy of NPOV |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Misplaced Pages policy is that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias. According to Misplaced Pages founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable" " |
|
|
|
|
|
It is worth emphasizing that a neutral point of view is one that incorporates (significant) minority views, not one that ignores such minority views. |
|
|
|
|
|
It is quite obvious that in the recent period, editors have not been following these guidelines. Rather than improving edits, editors have been reverting. Rather than attempting to incorporate minority views, editors have been attempting to exclude those views. |
|
|
|
|
|
I would like all active editors to take the current cooling off period to reconsider their commitment to these guidelines. I would further propose that as a precondition for the unlocking of the page, we make an explicit agreement amongst ourselves to abide by these guidelines. (BostonMA 03:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
By attaching my username below, I agree to abide by the guidelines described above. |
|
|
|
|
|
*(BostonMA 03:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
----------- |
|
|
|
|
|
<b>Proposal re: Original Research</b> |
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, there are many sorts of statements that are immediately suspect as original research, and more or less require verifiable sources if they are to stand. Such suspect statements include statements of the implications of certain theories. For example, if one states, "Person X's theory implies Y", that is likely to be original research, that it is likely that the editor actually made the implication. It would not be original research if a verifiable source drew the implication, although questions of neutrality may come into play at that point. Another suspect class of statements are those that purport to provide the motives or reasons behind the actions of various parties. Again, if there are verifiable sources, then it would not be original research, but these sorts of statements are immediately suspect. A third class of statements that I would find suspect includes those that have "The world" or "History" as the subject of an action clause. |
|
|
|
|
|
Suspect statements are not necessarily original research. However, the following phrases in Communism are examples of things that raise red flags for me. |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Marx's theory had presumed that..." (Who drew the implication from Marx's theory? A verifiable source, or the author of the edit?) |
|
|
|
|
|
:"according to Marxian theory" (According to Marxian theory, or according to the interpetation of Marxian theory of the editor?) |
|
|
|
|
|
:"For this reason, the socialist Mensheviks..." (Who drew this inference? The editor? or a verifiable source?) |
|
|
|
|
|
I would favor the establishment of an informal, but at least explicitly stated agreement regarding such suspect statements. |
|
|
|
|
|
The agreement I would propose is this: |
|
|
|
|
|
:1. An editor puts on the discussion page a section entitled |
|
|
|
|
|
::"Original Research -- some description". |
|
|
|
|
|
:2. Other editors supply, within 48 hours, verifiable sources if they exist, or a request for extension. |
|
|
:3. If no offer of verifiable sources or request for extension is made within 48 hours, an editor may edit or remove the suspect statement. |
|
|
:4. Editors agree not to revert a suspect statement removed or editted in accordance with this procedure, unless verifiable sources are provided. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*(BostonMA 19:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)) |
|
|
*(] <small>] • ]</small> 03:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
---------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
==DISCUSSIONS== |
|
|
|
|
|
This section contains discussions that I felt needed a home other than the archives. Please do not edit this section. If you have any comments you would like to make regarding these discussion, please make these comments in my user ] page. The discussions may have been reformatted for clarity. |
|
|
|
|
|
--------- |
|
|
|
|
|
<b>Suspected Original Research, "The modern world's first effort to build socialism"</b> |
|
|
|
|
|
<b>]: </b>The current text reads: |
|
|
|
|
|
:"In Russia, the modern world's first effort to build socialism or communism on a large scale, following the 1917 October Revolution, led by Lenin's Bolsheviks, raised significant theoretical and practical debates on communism among Marxists themselves." |
|
|
|
|
|
Statements which attribute actions to "the modern world" are suspect as original research. After 48 hours have elapsed, (and obviously after the article is unlocked), I will edit this sentence, unless someone provides a verifiable source for the sentence or makes a request for more time to locate such a verifiable source. |
|
|
|
|
|
I will replace it with the following text, unless convinced that another text is superior. |
|
|
|
|
|
:"The Russian 1917 October Revolution was the first time any party with an avowedly Marxist orientation, the Bolshevik Party, obtained state power. The assumption of state power by the Bolsheviks generated by a great deal of practical and theoretical debate within the Marxist movement." |
|
|
|
|
|
(BostonMA 22:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
<b>]: </b>This is just a matter of style, not original research or POV. Once the article. On that note, the style of the sentence should be modified, so as to avoid coming across as giving agency to non-human historical abstractions such as "the modern world." When the article is unprotected, I will change the prose in question to the following "... first effort to build socialism or communism on a large scale in modern history... " Still, there's no reason to make a little style error out to be a bigger deal than it really is. 172 23:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<b>]: </b>Hi, as far as I am concerned, your version is still suspected original research, and I will expect you to provide some sort of verifiable source. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, I disagree that the issue is not one of POV. You take the POV that an attempt was made (by whom? Stalin?) to build socialism. My POV is that Stalin used the political slogan of "buiding socialism" to advance certain ends, but that he did not actually attempt to build socialism, but rather something repulsive to socialism. (BostonMA 00:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
<b>]: </b>Fine. Then the sentence can get changed to "... first purported effort to build socialism or communism on a large scale in modern history... " Who is making the claim to be building socialism is obviously the Bolsheviks in this context. 172 00:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<b>]: </b>Then the date should be changed from the 1917 October Revolution to the 1924 rise of Stalin's power, unless your claim is that the Bolsheviks were purporting to build socialism prior to that date. If that is your claim, I again, would ask for verifiable sources. |
|
|
|
|
|
<b>]: </b>Huh? Their goal was building socialism before Stalin's rise to power. 172 00:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<b>]: </b>Did the Bolhseviks have the goal of building socialism in Russia before Communist parties came to power in the West? I do not believe so. You may have a different opinion, and that would not be uncommon. However, commonly held views are often mistaken, (and in this case I think they are mistaken). That is why I ask for a verifiable source. (BostonMA 01:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
<b>]: </b>This point is kind of moot. Both Trotskyites and Stalinists wanted to see the revolution spread to the West, and they expected it to spread. The fact that it would not was revealed to them after the Bolshevik Revolution. Yes, they came to power in 1917 with the goal of building 'socialism' (whatever they claimed that meant to them). No one disputes this. 172 01:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<b>]: </b>Perhaps it would clarify things for me to tell you that in my opinion, the aim of the Bolshviks prior to 1924 was to build what they referred to as "the dictatorship of the proletariat", which is something quite distinct from socialism/communism. I agree that the Bolsheviks hoped to some day build socialism, but that is not the same as "... first purported effort to build socialism". Do you see? BostonMA |
|
|
|
|
|
<b>]: </b>Yes, their view of socialism presupposed the dictatorship of the proletariat. But they were confident that the dictatorship of the proletariat would lead to the building of communism and socialism. You are right to maintain that their conceptions of the terms rendered them distinct. But I see no problem with the wording I proposed avove-- for clarity and brevity-- because it makes no reference to sequencing or time horizons. So it just skrits the issue of the discourses within Marxism at the time as to when the building of socialism was to begin. 172 02:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<b>]: </b>Your wording does indeed skirt the issue of what the Bolsheviks actually thought and said about their actions. I'm not sure that is a good thing for an article on communism. Clarity and brevity also apply to my wording. I think it is important to stick with the policy of strict accuracy and verifiable sources, because that will help to prevent bias. There is a danger, I think, that the current wording provides support for straw-man arguments against communism. Providing support for straw-man arguments, when one could just as easily be accurate gives the impression of non-NPOV. (BostonMA 02:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
<b>]: </b>Not to quibble with your point, I fell compelled to point out that while one can say that the text does not contradict those 'straw-man arguments agaisnt communism,' it does not support those 'straw-man arguments' per se. For a general sourcebook writing an entry on communism, describing Bolshevik rule following the October Revolution as the first attempt in modern history to build socialism on a large scale is a concise and sufficient way of making an important observation. Reference sources like Misplaced Pages are simply not expected to go into the same level of detail on Marxist discourses on revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat as (say) Encylopedia of Marxism in their entry on communism. As I keep on telling Gibby, while I think your observations are valid, there's only so much material that the general article on communism can cover, with the article being left with a reasonable word count. Meanwhile, there are literally thousands of articles on the English Misplaced Pages related to communist ideology, Communist parties, Communist regimes, and discourses on Communism that lack editors, desperately needing the kind of attention that has been devoted in the past couple of days to the talk page of this article. In sum, we can get around to better specifying the particular sentence that you're calling into question-- as soon as the article is unprotected; for now, though, we'll have to wait for the matter involving Gibby to be resolved before this article can be unlocked. 172 04:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<b>]: </b>One significant POV is that socialism/communism was tried in Russia and failed. Another significant POV, probably a minority, is that that socialism/communism has not been tried. Stating that Russia was the first attempt to build socialism is an explicit denial of the second POV. You repeat your arguments about word count, conciseness, and avoiding detailed Marxist discourse. I think my proposed wording satisfies those concerns. It is short, concise, and does not contain detailed Marxist discourse. (It does break one long sentence into two, but that was a stylistic choice on my part). Your final point is that your proposed text "makes an important observation". The question of bias requires me to ask "who made this observation?". If it is the editor's observation, then it is original research. (BostonMA 12:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
Your final comment suggests that we table this discussion for now. I believe I have made a fair proposal for how to deal with text suspected of original research. You have not yet agreed to that proposal, but you have not made any other proposal for how we ought to procede in a way that avoids edit warring. If you do not feel that we have or can come to a consensus, perhaps we need an outside view to take a look. Please let me know what you think. (BostonMA 13:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Items to Negotiate, Issues to Resolve== |
|
|
|
|
|
This section contains items that I wish to negotiate with other editors or issues I wish to resolve. The appearance of an item here does not mean that Misplaced Pages guidelines, policies or etiquette has been violated, nor does it mean that I am angry with the party or parties involved. It only means that I personally have an issue and wish to resolve it. Please do not edit this section. If you wish to resolve or negotiate an issue with me, please do so on my ] page. Resolved/negotiated issues will be removed from this section. |
|
|
|
|
|
=== ]'s comments on Indians === |
|
|
|
|
|
I have an issue with the following comment made by ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
:"I can stick around on Rajput, but I felt let down, people on AN told me simply "don't feed the trolls". These are not simply trolls in the narrow sense, and it is pointless to waste time with them, because even if you get them to listen to sense, there are millions of more clueless people where they came from, and especially in India, every sh*thole is getting internet access. I feel for these people, because they are in an actual ethnic conflict, and must feel actual hate, but I don't feel responsible for babysitting them, Misplaced Pages is not for them." |
|
|
|
|
|
I informed ] that I had an issue with his comments. , . We ] the issue briefly. I suggested to him that his comments may have hurt his relationships with others. I suggested that comments may be offensive even when the author of the comments does not intend them to be such. I also suggested that the best course when one offends is usually to acknowledge that one has been offensive (even if unintentionally), to apologize, and to avoid taking on airs that it is those who are offended that are in the wrong. Dbachmann has chosen not to follow that course of action. |
|
|
:have I not, now? I argue that I have shown patience and good faith to the point of ridicule, several times over, and that I am not to blame if I refuse to go through the motions another time each time that any editor feels that I should be made to. Your statement is wrong. I assume that you are not aware it is, but then I do not understand why you should feel called to comment on my behaviour without first ''researching'' my behaviour. My comments are not offensive, and I do not have to apologize for their content. I did apologize for any ''unintended'' offence they may have caused, more than sufficiently, and I won't do it again. It is very obvious that any editors dragging this up again are not acting in good faith, and I am flattered that they are apparently unable to produce anything less stale as evidence of alleged misbehaviour on my part. |
|
|
You may read the last iteration of this . I refuse to address this once every month, anyone interested in this "controversy" can go through the archives and read everything I have to say about it. ] <small>]</small> 07:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
"Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Misplaced Pages readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."
