User talk:Fjodorii
Please DON'T EDIT THIS PAGE but click HERE to add your message at the bottom, or send your reaction to fjodorii -AT -gmail -DOT -com.
Personal Reflections on my trip through en.wikipedia.org
I started exploring en.wikipedia around 15/01/2005 and I immediately ran into trouble. Being interested in the Jewish people I added some contributions there. By the way it took ages to get it done (wikipedia servers seem to be very slow for edits so it seems). Moreover, my edits were removed all the time within 24 hours by a user named Jayjg. In spite of having read through the most basic policy pages first (including as NPOV), it was my first experience with the fact that admins (or whatever title they have) on wikipedia tend to remove your whole thinkering with one click rather then to adjust what one just adjusted. It is my impression that rollback tools may make some people rather lazy.
But first impressions don't prove anything. It's just that it took me hours to get just nothing done. And then to know that (a) my first welcome message on wikipedia told me to be bold, and also (b) I did read somewhere in the policy that newcomers should not be treated rude.
An example. I edited the Straw-man anti-Semitism subject in the Modern_Anti-Semitism page. When I was reading i was struck by the following statement:
- "One common form of anti-Semitism is the statement that Jews claim that all criticism of the State of Israel is anti-Semitism. This claim is then used to criticise Jewish groups as unreasonable."
Now it seemed quite obvious to me that this cannot be branded as anti-Semitism by any serious criterion. We should recognize the problem, but not ridiculize it by choosing the wrong terms. People who just think that Jewish groups explain all criticism against the state of Israel as anti-Semitism, are sure making an error. But this in itself is not anti-Semitism.
So I changed that paragraph into the following: "A rather special case is what we could call Self-inflicted simulative anti-Semitism. This is the purposeful statement that 'Jews claim that all criticism of the State of Israel is anti-Semitism'. This claim is then used to criticise Jewish groups as unreasonable. It is not necessarily an anti-Semitism of its own - it may be caused by ignorance, having taken over the idea from others. But it certainly is one of those things that indirectly contribute to the penetration of anti-Semitism into modern societies."
One day later the correction was removed, the original put back in place. Clearly a roll-back (one-click effort I guess). I could have understood an adaptation, a tuning, shortening, whatever. One can hardly say that I had removed something, or turned into something totally different. I tuned the wordings, leaving intact the suggestion that this encourages anti-Semitism in general, but reducing the direct attribution of anti-Semitism towards erroneous ideas.
I then put the above complaint on the discussion page of the Modern anti-Semitism page.
The reply from Jayjg was about the title "Self-inflicted simulative anti-Semitism" I used, being "difficult to understand". No problem (I'm had not fallen in love with my new title). But then, this: "The rest of your edit appears to be your own feelings on the matter; have recognized sources said the same thing that you were trying to say? Ideally you shouldn't get your own thoughts on the page at all, but should be getting the thoughts of various published authors on the subject onto the page instead. That is what Wikipedia:NPOV is all about."
Some early conclusions
- Executing one-click roll-backs on another one's work is far too easy. A "too difficult title" can be adapted, that is what I guess is collaboration.
- What was the main point here? The real subject at stake was clear enough: it was about the usage of the term "anti-Semitism" in this context. My argument was that you can by no means define this "strawman anti-Semitism" with the term "anti-Semitism", for the simple reason that it bases an insult of antisemitism on the fact that the opinion of the opponents is about antisemitism. You cannot just call antisemitism any argument that reveals ignorance about what antisemitism exactly means!
- What had this todo with "my own feelings on the matter"? You can reason away ANYthing with that argument.
- What about all that requesting for "links" or "sources"? That is very nice, but if the issue at stake is an erroneous argumentation, how could I add a source? I could possibly link to an explanation of the Fallacy of the False Cause - but that's not a link that should be placed on the antisemitism page of course.
- Is it really the policy of wikipedia that corrections, such as on the way an argument is used, should be rejected immediately?
- Is it really correct policy that one cannot add ANYTHING to a page except by some complicated procedure of discussing it via a discussion page or talk page?
On 19/01 a user called Humus_sapiens did a re-edit of the offended paragraph, as follows:
- "One common form of anti-Jewish hostility is an allegation that "Jews claim that all criticism of the State of Israel is anti-Semitism". This allegation is then used to criticise Jewish groups as unreasonable, overly anxious or unable to withstand criticism."
There is proof here that Humus_sapiens had at least understood the point. Although, the difference between accusing a certain group of anti-Semitism, and an accusation of anti-Jewish hostility, does not sound quite right because many people would just understand these terms as identical (the adaptation just reduces the impact by using a less used term).
To put it as clear as possible: I already stated that you cannot just call antisemitism every argument of ignorance about what antisemitism exactly means. This is a case of reflection of anti-Semitic underlying tendencies in someone's opinion, resulting in exaggeration. That is not full proof anti-Semitism. In a direct accusation based on an indirect argument, one can only point directly at the least scenario - in this case: possible anti-Jewish sentiments. Alternatively, of course, one can point to the worst scenario, but then he cannot wrap it into a direct accusation - it has to be indirect. The original statement linked a direct accusation with an indirect argument. Still, today, with Humus_sapiens adaptation, this is not really rectified.
So a better presentation needs, in my opinion, always a bit more words, just because it is an indirect kind of argumentation. Something like this:
- One common reflection of the underlaying anti-Jewish attitudes nowadays is in the allegation that "Jews claim that all criticism of the State of Israel is anti-Semitism". This is an "accusation of attitude", and may, as an argument, have been risen from ignorance, not realising that no Jew argues that way. The proof is often in the pudding: the underlaying anti-Semitic attitudes often come to the surface when foretold opinion is faced with the question to come up with proof, like names of multiple, reasonable, influential Jewish thinkers or writers who would talk or write like that. The allegation then often reveals real, underlaying anti-Jewish sentiments, when the accuser becomes angry or starts to insult anyway. The argument then converts quickly into obstinate criticism against Jewish groups being unreasonable, overly anxious or unable to withstand criticism. It thus becomes proof of the often hidden agenda behind the strawman methodics, which is real anti-Semitic sentiments. And certainly, this is all too often a part of that "machinery" of contributions to the global penetration of anti-Semitism into all societies that do not pay attention to these mechanisms.
Anyway, the experiment goes on. I'd like to learn how the system and it's policy really works.
My contributions (copy-edits)
Messages from others
From here on: Talk from/with others.
Here are some links I thought useful:
Wikipedia:Tutorial - Wikipedia:Help desk - M:Foundation issues - Wikipedia:Policy Library - Wikipedia:Utilities - Wikipedia:Cite your sources - Wikipedia:Verifiability - Wikipedia:Wikiquette - Wikipedia:Civility - Wikipedia:Conflict resolution - Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - Wikipedia:Pages needing attention - Wikipedia:Peer review - Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense - Wikipedia:Brilliant prose - Wikipedia:Featured pictures - Wikipedia:Boilerplate text - Wikipedia:Current polls - Wikipedia:Mailing lists - Wikipedia:IRC channel
Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.
Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 20:59, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi Fjodorii, welcome to Wikipedia. Please review carefully the Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:No original research policies. Even if you believe things to be true, you can't write your own feelings or beliefs about them in articles. Instead, you must quote reasonable references on the subjects. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:54, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I can solve your problem easily
F, I read your comments on problems at English Wikipedia with great interest. I appreciate your frustration, but I have to say I think you are wrong that the problem is the ease of rollback, which encourages laziness. I think the source of your problem is something else. To explain myself, I will quote you: "My argument was that you can by no means define this "strawman anti-Semitism" with the term "anti-Semitism", for the simple reason that it bases an insult of antisemitism on the fact that the opinion of the opponents is about antisemitism." As soon as you write "My argument ..." you can guarantee that what you write will be deleted ASAP. Why? Because we are not allowed to present our own arguments in Wikipedia articles. This is a basic violation of the "no original research" policy. Your argument involves an analysis of a phenomenon, and this is a perfect example of what we mean by "original research." Please note that our objection is not semantic -- it cannot be solved just by removing the phrase "my argument." This phrase is merely one diagnostic -- the problem is not that you say that it is your argument, the problem is that it is your argument. Here are other diagnostics that usually suggest original research: when someone write "It can be argued" or "One could argue." As an encyclopedia, wikipedia must be based on what others actually have argued, not our own hypotheticals. Now, if this were someone else's argument -- and if it was presented in a reputable publication or recognized forum, then it -- the very argument you are presenting -- can definitely be included in an article and I guarantee it will not be deleted. All you need to do is provide a verifiable source that conforms to our policies. Good luck, Slrubenstein 23:40, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Fjodorii, 15:00, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC): Thank you for the explanation. I understant your (and Jay's) point, but be aware that when I wrote "My argument was ...", it was on the discussion page, not in the article. What I mean is: you cannot tell "my argument" from an external argument that easily - the difference may just be the missing quote. And I'm still struggling to understand the logic behind linking my correction of a fallacious argument (not the argument itself but the way it was formulated) with "original research". The source for such a correction could, in my opinion, and as said multiple times now, only be some link to a website or book explaining fallacies; which is of course not the kind of source I could put in the anti-Semitism article. So here remains an open question. But thanks for your clarifications anyway.
Recent addition to the Anti-Semitism page
Alas, your recent contribution to the anti-Semitism article again appears to be original research. Please join the discussion about it on the Talk:Anti-Semitism page, as it may have to be deleted. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:53, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Fjodorii, 15:37, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC): I have added sources now. Thanks for reminding me, and thanks for your proof of self-control (you did not remove my contribution instantly, I think for the first time). I would still appreciate if you stop linking anything so quickly with an original research accusation. Nevertheless, I will think about mentioning proper sources in the future.