User:Doncram/Turning


 * This is an early draft, in userspace, of what may eventually become an essay in Wikipedia space. Not ready for that yet.

What does turning the other cheek mean, in the context of contention in Wikipedia editing? In other words, what is the Christian thing to do, when facing contention among Wikipedia editors, in particular when facing what appears to be bullying?

Turning the other cheek and other aspects of Christian discipleship are taught in the Sermon on the Mount, which appears in Chapter 5-7 of the Gospel of Matthew. These teachings have been understood in different ways. Specifically the concept is included in "The longest discourse in the Sermon..., traditionally referred to as the Antitheses or Matthew's Antitheses. In the discourse, Jesus fulfills and reinterprets the Old Covenant and in particular its Ten Commandments, contrasting with what "you have heard" from others. For example, he advises turning the other cheek, and to love your enemies, in contrast to taking an eye for an eye. According to most interpretations of Matthew 5:17, 18, 19, and 20, and most Christian views of the Old Covenant, these new interpretations of the Law and Prophets are not opposed to the Old Testament, which was the position of Marcion, but form Jesus' new teachings which bring about salvation, and hence must be adhered to, as emphasized in  towards the end of the sermon." (quoted from Wikipedia article, Sermon on the Mount)

Is "turning the other cheek" a matter of avoiding conflict, of walking away, of refusing to fan the fire? Entirely walking away seems unfair, that others behaving badly, bullying to get their way, are simply to be left standing and "winning". But fighting back, even trying to argue politely and to contend within recommended channels for dealing with conflict, can maybe be equated, at least somewhat, to seeking revenge for wrong done to self. Could walking away and letting the the other(s) "win" be the right thing to do? It seems to me that sometimes walking away is in fact the best course of action, on basis that we have to choose which issues are worth confronting, and some are certainly minor.

But when there is an apparent program of bullying going on, that is a serious matter. Bullying or harassment of an editor are actions taken with apparent aim to discourage an editor, to drive them away from the Wikipedia environment. When I see bullying going on, it is dismaying and discouraging, and I tend to think it is in fact very important to take some kind of stand. The question might be how to do so productively. Labelling behavior as bullying and accusing others of it can certainly rub people the wrong way.

Is turning the other cheek a matter of civil disobedience, akin to the protest against British salt tax in India in 1930, movingly described by American journalist Webb Miller. In which those harmed by the tax went to a salt works to protext, and were forcibly blocked and beaten. The protesters presented themselves, in line, to be beaten, and pulled away those who had been struck down. For that kind of protest to "work" in any way, the ones being protested against would have to have a conscience, be able to experience shame. In the salt tax case, the protest actually received world-wide attention, and had an impact on British home opinion about British colonialism. In this kind of "turning the other cheek", the subject, hurt on one cheek, is presenting the other, for potentially the same treatment. In Wikipedia, there could be cases when an editor, wronged by following harassment/bullying, accepts that in a way, for example by letting a harsh editing change of their work stand, and presents themselves again, perhaps to be treated in the same way, by going on to another article, where they might be followed and the same cycle played out. For this to be understood as civil disobedience, it would have to involve affecting the bullying follower, at least potentially changing them.

There are policies in Wikipedia, however, against using Wikipedia to wp:RIGHTGREATWRONGS (referring to mainspace writing) and against disruption in Wikipedia "to make a point" (wp:POINTY).

Is it a matter of other non-violent resistance? Means might include writing petitions, making individual requests or appeals, or pursuing Wikipedia's channels of dispute resolution.

There are directives or values in Wikipedia, that administrative powers are not to be used to punish editors, but rather are to be future-directed, aimed to avoid future contention, rather than punishing for past behavior. This philosophy appears faulty, in that it undermines comprehensive, sensible treatment of repeat offenders. For example, in the forum of wp:3RR about edit warring, the emphasis is usually about stopping a current edit war going on, and most often there is no judgment taken on who is at fault, often despite the facts being fairly clear. It seems like a waste of opportunity, when conscientious editors involve themselves in seeing what has happened, but then failing to make a finding which could potentially be of use in the future, for example to document a larger pattern of bullying.

Is it wrong to seek revenge? Probably, this is unworthy, when you put it that way. How do you identify it as revenge? Well, one indication is if there is following a disagreeing editor to unrelated topics and areas.