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

[The Adversary]

Sigh.

What a waste of time. But inevitable, I guess.

I tend to agree more and more with Kelly Martins´observation that "the encylopedia anyone can edit" is a great way to start an encyclopedia...and a lousy way to finish one.

But as long as we have basically "mob-rule" on wp, ie wrt sources ( yes, we do!) ..this sort of thing is bound to happen. When the "community" (with arb.com) always chooses the easy way out ("it is a content-dispute: work it out!")...it leaves an open invitation to mobs and socks.

We should, ideally, have some basic rules which would have forbidden mobs to push fringe views. Eg. The Haeretz/Guardian articles mentioned an example of saying that places in the occupied territories are "in Israel", a view held by no international institution, or for that matter; any other state. But with 50 newly "educated" religious right-wing Israelis: guess what wp will "reflect".

And the PA trying to push the opposite view? I think it is a "luxury project" that will get absolutely nowhere. But this article will serve as a wonderful, wonderful justification for the Yesha Council etc...... their own recruiting.
"Preemptive strike", anyone?

[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!

[Anonymous editor]

[Head of the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate Abdul Nasser] An-Najar said PJS plans to set up counter editing groups, and asked the Palestinian Authority to support the effort.

Great. Just what we need, another group of trained edit warriors.

Welcome to Wikipedia Review Malik. Congratulations on your recent promotion to administrator, and dick enlargement.

eh, not really so recent.

[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.

[GlassBeadGame]

This shows the fail of "anybody can edit." What is needed is the guidance of non-controversial experts, just like any real encyclopedia would use. First WMF would need to take editorial responsibility for the content.

I'm sure someone will argue the WMF would forfeit section 230 immunity by hand-picking said experts. That could be facetious, but I wouldn't make an even-money bet either way.

In the end a risk management strategy based on responsibility is more stable and sustaining than one based on immunity.

[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.

[The Adversary]

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.

Sigh. Try again: Jayjg is not the topic here. Nor any of the other "players". The topic it Jimbos judgement when it comes to the I/P-area.

None of the other "players" in this arena/or arb.com decision had been granted such powers --by Jimbo.

I have also been trying to find a video of Jimbo wich he made about "peace in the Middle East"...or something like that. I believe it was made before his appearance at the World Economic forum, (in Sharm), a couple of years ago.

I cannot find it now, but I recall it as quite embarrassing: Jimbo showed as much knowledge about the Middle East as an 8-year old. Hence, I find SB_Johnny´s description of him in this setting as quite accurate. Unfortunately.

[EricBarbour]

Sigh. Try again: Jayjg is not the topic here. Nor any of the other "players".

Far as you know........

[Kwork]

Sigh.

What a waste of time. But inevitable, I guess.

I tend to agree more and more with Kelly Martins´observation that "the encylopedia anyone can edit" is a great way to start an encyclopedia...and a lousy way to finish one.

But as long as we have basically "mob-rule" on wp, ie wrt sources ( yes, we do!) ..this sort of thing is bound to happen. When the "community" (with arb.com) always chooses the easy way out ("it is a content-dispute: work it out!")...it leaves an open invitation to mobs and socks.

We should, ideally, have some basic rules which would have forbidden mobs to push fringe views. Eg. The Haeretz/Guardian articles mentioned an example of saying that places in the occupied territories are "in Israel", a view held by no international institution, or for that matter; any other state. But with 50 newly "educated" religious right-wing Israelis: guess what wp will "reflect".

And the PA trying to push the opposite view? I think it is a "luxury project" that will get absolutely nowhere. But this article will serve as a wonderful, wonderful justification for the Yesha Council etc...... their own recruiting.
"Preemptive strike", anyone?

That interesting. First you complain about "mob rule" on Wikipedia. Then you complain that an article's content (you do not say what article) has "a view held by no international institution"....as though international politics is something other than mob rule. As far as I know article content is supposed to be based on sources that are WP:V, not mob rule.

Your argument is an advocacy, ie rooting for the 'P' team. The problem with this approach always remains the same. How could it change when every WP editor (and WR member) thinks that their point of view on I/P problems is the completely right point of view, and that their team deserves to win the game. It is the zero-sum game approach to editing that thinks: my win is your loss.

By the way it seems that my education in wiki-speak is not complete. What is "wrt"?

[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?

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.

Well Jimbo obviously likes people who send him emails and lick his arse even if they do threaten to sabotage Wikipedia. (See a recent post by Tarantino in the Kavanagh thread for details of emailing and arse-licking.)

This episode has just let me know that he's a pompous prig. I'm sure that other WRers can point me to further examples of encyclopedic article writers who have fallen victim to said priggishness and consequently reduced their constructive activities or stopped them altogether.

[Anonymous editor]

Sigh.

What a waste of time. But inevitable, I guess.

I tend to agree more and more with Kelly Martins´observation that "the encylopedia anyone can edit" is a great way to start an encyclopedia...and a lousy way to finish one.

But as long as we have basically "mob-rule" on wp, ie wrt sources ( yes, we do!) ..this sort of thing is bound to happen. When the "community" (with arb.com) always chooses the easy way out ("it is a content-dispute: work it out!")...it leaves an open invitation to mobs and socks.

We should, ideally, have some basic rules which would have forbidden mobs to push fringe views. Eg. The Haeretz/Guardian articles mentioned an example of saying that places in the occupied territories are "in Israel", a view held by no international institution, or for that matter; any other state. But with 50 newly "educated" religious right-wing Israelis: guess what wp will "reflect".

And the PA trying to push the opposite view? I think it is a "luxury project" that will get absolutely nowhere. But this article will serve as a wonderful, wonderful justification for the Yesha Council etc...... their own recruiting.
"Preemptive strike", anyone?

That interesting. First you complain about "mob rule" on Wikipedia. Then you complain that an article's content (you do not say what article) has "a view held by no international institution"....as though international politics is something other than mob rule. As far as I know article content is supposed to be based on sources that are WP:V, not mob rule.

Your argument is an advocacy, ie rooting for the 'P' team. The problem with this approach always remains the same. How could it change when every WP editor (and WR member) thinks that their point of view on I/P problems is the completely right point of view, and that their team deserves to win the game. It is the zero-sum game approach to editing that thinks: my win is your loss.

By the way it seems that my education in wiki-speak is not complete. What is "wrt"?

not really wiki-speak. General internet abbreviation. "With regard to" or "with respect to". Either way, it means the same thing.

[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 topic-banned from the I/P area and stripped of his CU-powers) ..to arb.com again!

Many members of this list have the strange idea that Jayjg has some sort of extraordinary power on WP. If that was ever the case, which I doubt, it must have ended long ago. In fact the fourth, and final, time I got indeffed followed a defense I made of Jayjg on the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard following the arbcom decision on Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria. The discussion can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...l_of_privileges

I do not recall a single administrator who defended Jayjg in that. But my defense got me some special attention from rootology, Lar, and Rlevse, who all soon showed up on my talk page with warnings and blocks to hand out. It was pretty funny, really. My support for Jayjg was clearly had not been appreciated.

[Anonymous editor]

his influence has long ago eroded. I don't think he was ever a superpower, but he did wield some influence.

[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.

[Eppur si muove]

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.

When I first mentioned the Kahane movement, I said that it was banned in Israel and the uS as a terrorist and racist group. However, even after those groups are banned, Kahanists still exist. They still use the exact same version of the fist and star logo that Kahanist groups such as Kahane Chai and the Jewish Defense League used and they use them in publicity photos sent to newspapers such as this years after the groups have been banned while pretending to just be combatting anti-Semitism.

[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.

[Wikifan]

Except I doubt the PNA has the competence to offer any training in any field besides cronyism and corruption for dummies.

Maybe WR should offer training courses like this? We're probably more qualified than either of those organizations, right? Most of these people probably don't even know who Jayjg is!

This could even be a practical use for Wikiversity - now there's a notion I never thought I'd entertain.

(Btw, for those of you not keeping score, Mssrs. Shabazz and Nableezy don't appear to be the best of friends, at least on Wikipedia. Hopefully they'll restrain themselves a bit better here...? )

My experience with Palestinians is that they are intelligent, well educated, and hard working. I have a lot of respect for them, and what they have accomplished despite many difficulties. I am sure that can give an excellent training in WP editing.

Palestinians, sure. Palestinian "leaders", especially those in the PNA, not so much.

The Palestinian government in Gaza put together a very credible fighting force. There are schools, and although I do not know for sure how good the are, I do know that Palestinians get very good educations at university level around the world. There are hospitals, with good doctors, and other infrastructure. Certainly with better government things could be better, but that can be said of any country.

There are poets, artists, musicians, all with a great tradition behind them. You can not say there is just potential, there are accomplishments.

I know right. Siphoning humanitarian aid and selling it on the black market, begging for donations from first world nations while buying mansions in Paris and London, pirating water from fellow Palestinians and then complain Israel isn't giving enough because of racism...yeah, lots of potential.

Any future Palestine would self-destruct without being baby-sat by Israel, EU, and the UN.

[The Adversary]

...as though international politics is something other than mob rule. []
What is "wrt"?

International politics= mob rule?
Interesting view. Why do we have international organizations then? Why not just cut them out, leave it all to the mob?

(And AE was right: wrt= with regard to)