Palestinians to face 'Wikipedia War' - Ma'an News Agency Options

[Newsfeed]

Palestinians to face 'Wikipedia War'
Ma'an News Agency
BETHLEHEM (Ma'an) -- The next regional war will be a media war, head of the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate Abdul Nasser An-Najar said Thursday. ...

<a href="http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&ned=us&ncl=d5fZNkgRtsNMcWM" target="_blank"></a>

View the article

[Eppur si muove]

So what's the spread betting on the number of new I/P editors to be placed under editing restrictions before the end of the year? And how many will really be old friends returning?

[SB_Johnny]

So what's the spread betting on the number of new I/P editors to be placed under editing restrictions before the end of the year? And how many will really be old friends returning?

Tough call, since it seems Jimbo thinks it's not a problem.

When he jumps in, it's kinda like throwing a rodeo clown on a dirt bike onto the Kentucky Derby track.

[The Adversary]

So what's the spread betting on the number of new I/P editors to be placed under editing restrictions before the end of the year? And how many will really be old friends returning?

Tough call, since it seems Jimbo thinks it's not a problem.

When he jumps in, it's kinda like throwing a rodeo clown on a dirt bike onto the Kentucky Derby track.

In the I/P area Jimbo lost every bit of cred (if he ever had any) years ago....when he appointed Jayjg to arb.com...even if there were others who had more votes than Jayjg.

Someone should ask Jimbo if he doesn´t want to appoint Jayjg (now topic-banned from the I/P area and stripped of his CU-powers) ..to arb.com again!

[Kwork]

So what's the spread betting on the number of new I/P editors to be placed under editing restrictions before the end of the year? And how many will really be old friends returning?

Tough call, since it seems Jimbo thinks it's not a problem.

When he jumps in, it's kinda like throwing a rodeo clown on a dirt bike onto the Kentucky Derby track.

In the I/P area Jimbo lost every bit of cred (if he ever had any) years ago....when he appointed Jayjg to arb.com...even if there were others who had more votes than Jayjg.

Someone should ask Jimbo if he doesn´t want to appoint Jayjg (now topi-banned from the I/P area and stripped of his CU-powers) ..to arb.com again!

As far as I know Jayjg's topic ban is expired, but he does not seem to have returned to editing I/P articles. But I wish you would stop whining about Jayjg, because I saw him outvoted by the 'P' team many times in I/P editing disputes.

[The Adversary]

As far as I know Jayjg's topic ban is expired, but he does not seem to have returned to editing I/P articles. But I wish you would stop whining about Jayjg, because I saw him outvoted by the 'P' team many times in I/P editing disputes.

Hmm, I thought it was idef.

But Kwork, I agree: Jayjg is not the topic here. The topic it Jimbos judgement when it comes to the I/P-area; which has been, shall we say, less than stellar.

[Kwork]

As far as I know Jayjg's topic ban is expired, but he does not seem to have returned to editing I/P articles. But I wish you would stop whining about Jayjg, because I saw him outvoted by the 'P' team many times in I/P editing disputes.

Hmm, I thought it was idef.

But Kwork, I agree: Jayjg is not the topic here. The topic it Jimbos judgement when it comes to the I/P-area; which has been, shall we say, less than stellar.

There were a host of editors (from both teams) topic banned in the arbcom decision. I think they had the right to request their ban be lifted after six months, but that is just my memory and I could be wrong. I was not a party in the case and had not edited any of the articles involve in that.

Jayjg got singled out for tough treatment, and had some of his administrative powers removed - such as checkuser - even though there was nothing to show he had ever misused that....in contrast to Lar.

[Eppur si muove]

As far as I know Jayjg's topic ban is expired, but he does not seem to have returned to editing I/P articles. But I wish you would stop whining about Jayjg, because I saw him outvoted by the 'P' team many times in I/P editing disputes.

Hmm, I thought it was idef.

But Kwork, I agree: Jayjg is not the topic here. The topic it Jimbos judgement when it comes to the I/P-area; which has been, shall we say, less than stellar.

There were a host of editors (from both teams) topic banned in the arbcom decision. I think they had the right to request their ban be lifted after six months, but that is just my memory and I could be wrong. I was not a party in the case and had not edited any of the articles involve in that.

Jayjg got singled out for tough treatment, and had some of his administrative powers removed - such as checkuser - even though there was nothing to show he had ever misused that....in contrast to Lar.

In the end it worked out as five editors on the P side and 2 on the I being banned. This is because two of the banned editors were the same person who has continue to edit under further sock ids. I don't know why people have it in for JayJG, I've found that I can work with him on other matters. He understands that I am as happy to work against anti-Semites as against the right wing of Zionism and we have cooperated in those areas. We understand where we disagree and where we agree and don't take arguments with each other out of the I/P area. And there are other Z editors besides J with whom I have clashed on I/P matters who also understand and have the intellectual honesty to be able to know that I am both critical of Zionism and opposed to anti-Semites. However there are at least two people who have made posts today on Wikipedia Review sayign that I am anti-Semitic. One of them is a bit slow and may not have grasped the complexities of the matter, the other is most certainly being intellectually dishonest.

[Kwork]

As far as I know Jayjg's topic ban is expired, but he does not seem to have returned to editing I/P articles. But I wish you would stop whining about Jayjg, because I saw him outvoted by the 'P' team many times in I/P editing disputes.

Hmm, I thought it was idef.

But Kwork, I agree: Jayjg is not the topic here. The topic it Jimbos judgement when it comes to the I/P-area; which has been, shall we say, less than stellar.

There were a host of editors (from both teams) topic banned in the arbcom decision. I think they had the right to request their ban be lifted after six months, but that is just my memory and I could be wrong. I was not a party in the case and had not edited any of the articles involve in that.

Jayjg got singled out for tough treatment, and had some of his administrative powers removed - such as checkuser - even though there was nothing to show he had ever misused that....in contrast to Lar.

In the end it worked out as five editors on the P side and 2 on the I being banned. This is because two of the banned editors were the same person who has continue to edit under further sock ids. I don't know why people have it in for JayJG, I've found that I can work with him on other matters. He understands that I am as happy to work against anti-Semites as against the right wing of Zionism and we have cooperated in those areas. We understand where we disagree and where we agree and don't take arguments with each other out of the I/P area. And there are other Z editors besides J with whom I have clashed on I/P matters who also understand and have the intellectual honesty to be able to know that I am both critical of Zionism and opposed to anti-Semites. However there are at least two people who have made posts today on Wikipedia Review sayign that I am anti-Semitic. One of them is a bit slow and may not have grasped the complexities of the matter, the other is most certainly being intellectually dishonest.

What a load of crap.

1.If Jayjg finds it convent to hold his nose and work with you that's his business. I suppose he has to make do with what's around.

2.The right wing Zionist group that you have been complaining so much about, Kach, is banned in Israel, and classified as a terrorist group everywhere. Complain about them all you want, but they are out of the loop.

3. In my view you would not recognize "intellectual honesty" if it was served to you with watercress around it.

4.The "slow" list member you are referring to must be me. I am a simple uneducated worker who never went to college, and almost did not graduate from high school. I admit to being a member of the working class on my only still existing user page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Malcolm_Schosha

Personally I try to make it a practice not make critical comments about things that are not a matter of choice. Criticism is, in my view, only justified in matters where there is choice. If, for instance, someone is intelligent or slow, attractive or ugly, Chinese, Italian or Indian, healthy or sickly, etc are matters that are outside the area of choice. On the other hand, if someone is kind or mean, tolerant or bigoted, patient or irascible, those are matters of choice; and a critical analysis of those matters is justified. I think that blame or derision toward things that do not involve choice (intelligence, ethnicity, etc) is vicious.

[Milton Roe]

Personally I try to make it a practice not make critical comments about things that are not a matter of choice. Criticism is, in my view, only justified in matters where there is choice. If, for instance, someone is intelligent or slow, attractive or ugly, Chinese, Italian or Indian, healthy or sickly, etc are matters that are outside the area of choice. On the other hand, if someone is kind or mean, tolerant or bigoted, patient or irascible, those are matters of choice; and a critical analysis of those matters is justified. I think that blame or derision toward things that do not involve choice (intelligence, ethnicity, etc) is vicious.

It may be underhanded to criticize people for things they can't change, but what religion you believe in and what cultural traditions you follow, are certainly matters of choice, are they not? (Although a huge number of people end up commited to life to the religion they imbibed with mothers' milk; we'll leave out that complication, as this is changable).

Many of the people screaming about "antisemitism" blur the line between genetics and culture/religion. If you criticize a Jew for some Jewish belief (of which there are a variety, from reform to orthodox, as you know), quite often he or she will come back with "I was BORN a Jew! It's my genes! It's my race! You're an antisemite and a racist!" No. A person can be born a Jew as someone can be born a Catholic, and/or born a Jew as someone can be born an Austalian Bushman. A Bushman cannot change his genes. But after a certain age, he becomes responsible for his beliefs. So the beliefs are fair game for criticism, but the genes and ethnicity are not.

If Jews were very careful about applying the term "antisemitism" only to people who believed in the badness of Jewish genetics, things would be clarified greatly. But many are unwilling to do so, because they want the protection of being able to call "racist" at anybody who challenges what in any other religion would simply be a fair-game folkway, "more," taboo, belief, tradition, or whatever. So they asked for this problem, in a sense. "Church of Scientology" people (for example) don't get to shout "racist" automatically at anybody who laughs at Xenu, e-meters, and body thetans. But there are plenty of Jews willing to do that very thing at anybody who holds them accountable for their religious ideas and cultural biases, including those who believe in Zionism. They don't get a free pass just because they tend to keep their culture within their families like the Amish, and don't proseletize.