Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:09, 17 October 2006

Userboxes This user is a member of Wikipedians against censorship. This user is not afraid of being wrong. This user is a recent changes patroller. This user makes mistakes on RC patrol. (Report one) Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof This user was the winner of Round 12 of the India Quiz.

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 talk page.

Wikimedia Commons page

tips for the angry new user. (shamelessly stolen from Gamaliel.)

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

* Mediator Reminder Page

* Mediation Page

Template:TestTemplates

Gifts

A Mediation Barnstar A Barnstar awarded by Striver on 17 October 2006 to BostonMA for keeping his cool and staying on topic during a tough mediation on the Muhammad article talk page regarding the use of pictures on that article. Impressive and inspiring!

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 Communism 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 talk page.

Proposal for moderating the edit wars

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))

Proposal re: Original Research

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))
• (≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 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 talk page. The discussions may have been reformatted for clarity.

Suspected Original Research, "The modern world's first effort to build socialism"

BostonMA: 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))

172: 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)

BostonMA: 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))

172: 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)

BostonMA: 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.

172: Huh? Their goal was building socialism before Stalin's rise to power. 172 00:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

BostonMA: 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))

172: 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)

BostonMA: 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

172: 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)

BostonMA: 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))

172: 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)

BostonMA: 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 talk page. Resolved/negotiated issues will be removed from this section.

Dbachmann's use of ethnic, national and religious attributes of editors when making negative criticisms

I have an unresolved issue with the Dbachmann. Dbachmann is a very knowledgable and prolific contributor to Misplaced Pages.

I believe that:

It is unnecessary to mention the nationality, culture or religion of editors when discussing edits. To gratuitously mention such attributes of editors in the course of criticizing edits has all the appearances of being an insult to those of the mentioned nationality, culture or religion -- it has the appearance of an insinuation that faults an editor may have are somehow related to that editor's nationality, culture or religion. Whether an insult was intended or not, civility dictates avoiding mentioning such attributes.

examples of such comments by DBachmann to be placed here if the issue remains unresolved for a period of time -- dab and I are in active communication at the moment so that may not be necessary.

• The edit summary reads in part:

"o ffs, what is it with this Hindu gerontophilia?".

"O ffs", according to Internet slang means "Oh, for fuck's sake". Gerontophilia in this case means, as far as I can tell, "love of old things". An editor had inserted an edit claiming that "Varanasi is the oldest living city in the world", which is factually incorrect. DBachmann was correct to remove the claim, but it is not only Hindus that love old things.

This comment reads in part:

"It figures that you should feel so strongly about my comment about "clueless Indians" since you are obviously one of them. This has nothing to do with anti-Indian sentiment, since I obviously recognize that there is plenty of cluelessness in any nation on earth. But I happen to find, empirically, here on Wikipeida, that in few other fields is cluelessness force-fed to people quite as obstinately as in India-related articles."

It is hard not to read this other than as a personal attack on another editor, essentially calling that editor a 'clueless indian'. This comment is rude and insulting to the editor involved. DBachmann acknowledges that there are clueless people of other nationalities. However, even under the assumption that the editor involved is clueless as alleged, it is unnecessary in Misplaced Pages to make such direct insults, and so it is equally unnecessary to mention the nationality of the editor involved.

Regardless of intent, a reasonable person might surmise that such comments could be interpretted (or 'mis'-interpretted) as an offense. People who insist on their "right" to use language that is likely to be offensive to some, when that language is quite unnecessary for the purposes of communication, show a lack of respect for the feeling of others at best, and contempt for those who may be offended is hardly ruled out.

This comment reads in part:

"too often I am accused of being a clueless meddling whiteboy by Hindus for being involved in areas where I do have expertise."

I believe that a reasonable person might infer when someone accuses another of being a "clueless whiteboy", that the accuser is consciously or unconsciously racist. I believe that it is therefore not unreasonable for someone to read dbachmann's comment as an accusation that Hindu editors on wikipedia are racist.

Dbachmann has in fact been the target of defacement of his userpage. I don't recall whether the term "whiteboy" was used, but such a term would have been consistent with they type of defacement to which the userpage was subject. There, is thus, at least one person who has thown racial insults at Dbachmann. Based on the content of these defacements, it is also not unreasonable for Dbachmann to assume that the perpetrator was Hindu. (Although one might keep an open mind to the possibility that the perpetrator had some other agenda, and merely seized upon a convenient pretext for his or her actions.)

Dbachmann has been the subject of attack. However, he references this attack as coming from Hindus (plural), and presumably, from the context, he means Hindu editors of Misplaced Pages. I personally believe that the vast majorities of both Hindu and non-Hindu editors would agree with me that a) Dbachmann is not "clueless", but is highly educated, and b) that the color of his skin has no bearing upon the quality of his contributions. I thus take objection to his comment which could not unreasonably be construed as suggesting that Hindu editors of wikipedia are racist.

I would also like to point out that if Dbachmann suffers from a negative image among some editors, that he might be able to attenuate that negative image by accepting that it is inappropriate behavior for him to make comments such as his "It figures that you should feel so strongly about my comment about 'clueless Indians' since you are obviously one of them."

• Early history of the conflict
• More History

When administrators and major editors give the impression that it is OK to refer to the ethnicity of of editors when making negative comments, the result is that ordinary editors feel entitled to do the same. For example, in this edit the ethnicity of the previous editor is used in the negative edit summary.

This is a User Page

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 talk page.

• WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship participants