Changes

I still remain deeply committed to the project. I have a background in teaching (which is still an important part of my job) I and I love the idea of communicating difficult ideas about intellectual history in a plain and jargon-free way.  Wikipedia is a brilliant way of doing this and in some ways it works very well. But it is plagued by a number of problems that the administration has failed to address

I still remain deeply committed to the project. I have a background in teaching (which is still an important part of my job) I and I love the idea of communicating difficult ideas about intellectual history in a plain and jargon-free way.  Wikipedia is a brilliant way of doing this and in some ways it works very well. But it is plagued by a number of problems that the administration has failed to address

''First'', the shifting of priorities in Wikipedia from writing an encyclopedia, to the blocking of 'vandals'.  This is connected with the rise of a ''apparatchik'' class of politically adept editors who do not work in article space at all, except to revert vandalism.  These administrators are obsessed with a narrow-minded conception of civility, and they tend to regard good-faith but strongly-worded objections as a form of vandalism.  It is no coincidence that my first block ever, four years since I began editing, was over my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Renamed_user_4&oldid=175764532#Personal_attacks strongly-worded complaints] over the departure of the great editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Worldtraveller Worldtraveller], because of a spectacularly ill-judged block<ref>WT complained to an administrator that "Your continued rudeness and failure to remotely discuss your controversial administrative actions just confirms for me that you are a terrible administrator. Whatever I can do to get your administrative tools taken away from you, I will do. [[User:Worldtraveller|Worldtraveller]] 20:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC).  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AInShaneee&diff=111903370&oldid=111751593]. He was blocked for this</ref>.

''First'', the shifting of priorities in Wikipedia from writing an encyclopedia, to the blocking of 'vandals'.  This is connected with the rise of a ''apparatchik'' class of politically adept editors who do not work in article space at all, except to revert vandalism.  These administrators are obsessed with a narrow-minded conception of civility, and they tend to regard good-faith but strongly-worded objections as a form of vandalism.  It is no coincidence that my first block ever, four years since I began editing, was over my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Renamed_user_4&oldid=175764532#Personal_attacks strongly-worded complaints] over the departure of a good editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Worldtraveller Worldtraveller], because of a spectacularly ill-judged block<ref>WT complained to an administrator that "Your continued rudeness and failure to remotely discuss your controversial administrative actions just confirms for me that you are a terrible administrator. Whatever I can do to get your administrative tools taken away from you, I will do. [[User:Worldtraveller|Worldtraveller]] 20:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC).  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AInShaneee&diff=111903370&oldid=111751593]. He was blocked for this</ref>.

''Second'', by a plague of cruft, promotional and crank material on an almost Biblical scale.  I include in the latter (crank)category the rash of articles on 'alternative sexuality', for example the atrocious [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_and_cultural_perspectives_on_zoophilia&oldid=213891870 Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty Pederasty] are excellent examples of the latter.  Now these subjects ''should'' certainly be dealt with in an encyclopedia.  But dealt with carefully.  They should engage with the problem that there is little mainstream academic research on such subject, and that almost any theory about it is bound to be speculation. <ref>For example, the thesis that the almost universal repulsion against bestialism and man-boy sex is a comparatively modern phenomenon in human history, and that the modern view is a direct result of Judaeo-Christian culture.  Supposedly before that most human cultures and societies had a benevolent and supportive attitude to such proclivities.  The thesis was proposed (re pedophilia) by Warren Johansson and William Percy (and adopted enthusiastically by NAMBLA), and has an obvious motive: to make a minority seem persecuted, fits snugly into the liberal-left hatred of the church.  But it is mere speculation, and there is plenty of evidence against it</ref>.  An article on the subject of bestiality, for instance, should stick to broad statistics, medical views, carefully balanced views of ethicists, and should avoid academic research that is now known to be flawed or slanted. Anything else is pure original research, and does not belong on the project. Another example is [[Neurolinguistic programming]].  This falls in between the areas of crank psychology and promotional material.

''Second'', by a plague of cruft, promotional and crank material on an almost Biblical scale.  I include in the latter (crank)category the rash of articles on 'alternative sexuality', for example the atrocious [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_and_cultural_perspectives_on_zoophilia&oldid=213891870 Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty Pederasty] are excellent examples of the latter.  Now these subjects ''should'' certainly be dealt with in an encyclopedia.  But dealt with carefully.  They should engage with the problem that there is little mainstream academic research on such subject, and that almost any theory about it is bound to be speculation. <ref>For example, the thesis that the almost universal repulsion against bestialism and man-boy sex is a comparatively modern phenomenon in human history, and that the modern view is a direct result of Judaeo-Christian culture.  Supposedly before that most human cultures and societies had a benevolent and supportive attitude to such proclivities.  The thesis was proposed (re pedophilia) by Warren Johansson and William Percy (and adopted enthusiastically by NAMBLA), and has an obvious motive: to make a minority seem persecuted, fits snugly into the liberal-left hatred of the church.  But it is mere speculation, and there is plenty of evidence against it</ref>.  An article on the subject of bestiality, for instance, should stick to broad statistics, medical views, carefully balanced views of ethicists, and should avoid academic research that is now known to be flawed or slanted. Anything else is pure original research, and does not belong on the project. Another example is [[Neurolinguistic programming]].  This falls in between the areas of crank psychology and promotional material.