3,209
edits
Changes
Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Peter Damian Evidence (view source)
Revision as of 09:01, 20 September 2008
, 09:01, 20 September 2008no edit summary
The major premiss is clear. Everyone accepts that fair and principled criticism of another editor's action is essential to the continued survival of the Wikipedia project. To demonstrate the minor premiss, it will be necessary to discuss and [[#Criticism of FT2 | criticise]] some of FT2's contributions to the Wikipedia project, and to see how the [[#Blocks of Peter Damian | blocks of Peter Damian]] are connected with this.
The major premiss is clear. Everyone accepts that fair and principled criticism of another editor's action is essential to the continued survival of the Wikipedia project. To demonstrate the minor premiss, it will be necessary to discuss and [[#Criticism of FT2 | criticise]] some of FT2's contributions to the Wikipedia project, and to see how the [[#Blocks of Peter Damian | blocks of Peter Damian]] are connected with this.
== My concerns about Wikipedia ==
I still remain deeply committed to the project. I still teach as part of my job, I love teaching and I love the idea of communicating difficult ideas about intellectual history in a plain and jargon-free way. Wikipedia is a brilliant idea and in some ways it works very well. But it is plagued by a number of problems that the administration has failed to address
1. The way that a narrow-minded conception of civility is being used as a weapon against good editors. This is intimately connected with the rise of a ''apparatchik'' class of untalented but politically adept editors who have hijacked the project, and who specialise in the blocking or banning of editors who do not support the party line.
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.
2. The plague of cruft and promotional material and crank theories. Include in the latter category the articles on 'alternative sexuality'.
The articles on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_and_cultural_perspectives_on_zoophilia&oldid=213891870 Historical and cultural perspectives on zoophilia]] and [[Pederasty]] are perfect examples of the latter.
Now these subjects [i]should[/i] be dealt with. But dealt with carefully. They should engage with the problem that there is little academic research on the subject, and that almost any theory about it is bound to be speculation. 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. 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
== Criticism of FT2 ==
== Criticism of FT2 ==