User:SouthernNights/Healing Wikipedia

Can we heal racial divisions at Wikipedia?
As I have said before, I am disgusted with the actions against user:deeceevoice in the recent Requests for comment/Deeceevoice and her arbitration. Personally, I see her treatment as part of a continual problem with systemic bias and racism here at Wikipedia.

That said, it is also obvious that while a number of users agree with my assessment of the issue with DCV, there are a number of others who disagree.

In some ways, this entire affair has been bad for racial relations here at Wikipedia. Those who don't like how DCV acts have said that their actions are solely in response to DCV not being "nice" (as many have said) and breaking Wikipedia guidelines with regards to civility. Those who don't like what has happened to DCV (like me) see the affair as being driven by racism and bigotry. The funny thing is that there is overlap between the two sides. A number of those pushing to sanction DCV admit that some of actions against her have been wrong and haven't helped racial issues here (and that some of the users pushing the issue against her are doing so for possibly racist reasons). Almost all of us opposed to the actions against DCV admit that she is abrasive and has violated Wikipedia guidelines and should be much more civil in her discussions here. What we see, though, is a double-standard at work, with users appearing to gang up against non-minority editors like DCV for being less than civil, but not doing the same to white editors. People supporting the arbitration against DCV say that there is no double standard and that anyone who violates Wikipedia civility guidelines should be treated the same.

In short, I know that all sides in this see the issue as important but I wonder if we can find some middle ground and a way to heal these divisions? I encourage people to post their thoughts below. --Alabamaboy 21:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: While all opinions are welcome on this page, personal attacks will not be tolerated and will be struck out.

Points

 * Deeceevoice was incivil, but probably more of an initial clash of personalities and misunderstanding. That's fine, we want to encourage a diverse culture in the Wikipedia community, since that leads to a broader range of perspectives we can call upon as editing resources.
 * Both "sides" of the issue were at least mildly incivil somewhere along the line.
 * The RfC was arguably legit; the RfAr was a pile-on, and shouldn't have happened.
 * Certain users harassed Deeceevoice, and have harassed other editors on both "sides" of the matter.

Personal views

 * People's personal experiences can shape the way they edit for better, or for worse. If we beat them down for each instance of the latter (which, IMO, are just mistakes, and can be rectified in moments), then we discourage them from the editing that would yield the better.
 * Your nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, place of residence, favourite colour, preferred hot beverage or even, god help us, your favourite sex position; have nothing to do with your ability to write an encyclopedia and are irrelevant.
 * I think, with groupings of race and gender, there is a tendency present in human nature, to inadvertently divide into factions. This should still not be allowed to affect our own judgement or editing habits, and we shouldn't permit it to be a preclusionary factor, either. Generally, I feel, pointing out such inadvertent factionalisation is inappropriate unless it does become a problem. &mdash;the preceding comment is by Robchurch (talk)

Fred's thoughts
I support expression of strong authentic points of view, but that requires not reacting personally when they are expressed. Wikipedia, within it's natural boundaries, ought to reflect reality, not a washed out sanitized version of things. There are multiple ways of looking at things, some rather outrageous. An article on Malcolm X ought to convey the flavor, as we knew him. However Mau-Mauing is unacceptable. Fred Bauder 23:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

A question
If one were to suggest that you, who have behaved every bit as badly as Justforasecond during this ordeal, who even as you were creating this very page just had to belittle the opposing view with scare quotes and dismissive parenthetical asides, are just about the last person in the entire world who should be presuming to moderate a discussion on healing Wikipedia, would that be considered a personal attack? Just curious. --phh 15:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear you think I've behaved as badly as Justforasecond. Personally, I don't believe I have behaved poorly. I have avoided personal attacks in the discussions about DCV and her arbitration (if you have examples of any personal attacks by me, please give them). Yes, I have expressed my views on the situation and yes, I used the term lynching to describe the situation. However, as I've said, some of us see this as a legitimate term to describe what we see as happening to DCV.


 * As I stated at the top of this page, I'd like to see if there is some way for opposing sides on this issue to come together. I did not intend to "belittle the opposing view with scare quotes and dismissive parenthetical asides" on the page. I tried to present both views of the argument. I stated what people supporting DCV believe and what people opposing her believe. The only comment that might have been misinterpreted was "not being "nice" (so to speak)." I didn't intend this to belittle the statement and was just trying to say that Deeceevoice not being nice (civil) is what many people on the arbitration view as the heart of the matter. To clarify this, I have now rewritten the statement.


 * All of that said, I have grown increasingly disgusted with the venom and hate that is spewing out of the situation surrounding DCV. There are two ways to go from here: 1) Both sides can keep fighting and hating the other or 2) We can try to work out issues and find common ground. Personally, I prefer number 2.


 * To help achieve this, I have tried to point out issues of common ground between the sides. I will also publically state that while I still believe my use of lynching is valid and is not hate speech, in the interest of moving past all of this I will state that the term did not help matters and only inflamed the situation. I would not use the term again. That said, I hope people won't just trumpet this admission but will also try to see why so many of us view the attack on DCV as being against more than just her. Yes, she was uncivil. I don't think anyone opposed to her arbitration would admit she is civil. However, to many of us the reaction against her seems like an overreaction (such as trying to undo all her edits on articles). To those opposed to these actions, this is only happening because she is a minority editor.


 * Look forward to your response. Best,--Alabamaboy 15:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm happy that you struck your earlier reference to lynching from the record, but I was disappointed that you did it because the remark "did not help matters and only inflamed the situation" and not out of a recognition that it was wrong to use the metaphor in the first place. I wanna make sure we're clear about this: Lynching is when one or more vigilantes acting outside the justice system kidnap someone they presume to have violated a law or societal norm and murders that person execution-style. Typically they would do this by rousting the victim out of bed in the middle of the night and stringing him or her up into a tree to hang by the neck until dead, usually by slow and terrifying strangulation rather than a quick and relatively painless snap of the neck. Do you truly believe this matter is comparable? Do you believe that the thousands of real victims of real lynchings down through history would think the two are comparable?


 * This, incidentally, is part of the reason I believe you're not in a position to talk to the rest of us about healing.


 * I also believe that you've been blind, either knowingly or unknowingly, to the nature of this matter. Do you really believe that a white editor who abuses people the way Deeceevoice does would not find herself in arbitration sooner or later? As far as I can tell, the majority of currently open arbitration cases deal with alleged civility violations at least in part, and the cited offenses in those cases&mdash;or at least the ones I've looked at&mdash;pale in comparison to Deeceevoice's. As to why "users [are] appearing to gang up against non-minority editors like DCV for being less than civil, but not doing the same to white editors"&mdash;look, believe it or not, sometimes people just go where their travels take them. The only reason I'm here is that I was one of the people who got spammed about the RFC by Justforasecond, and because I'm an idiot, I came by for a look. It could have easily been any of the scores of other RFCs and RFArs that get filed around here every month, and if it had, I expect I would have done the same thing. You do me and the others the discourtesy of assuming that our intentions are not honorable, without providing any evidence to back it up, other that we have made the mistake of opposing you in this matter. This, too, is reason to doubt your ability to heal much of anything. More later. &mdash;phh 18:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you look at the Wiki entry for lynching it says, "Lynching is violence, usually murder, conceived by its perpetrators as extra-legal execution, or used as a terrorist method of enforcing social domination. Victims of lynching have generally been members of groups marginalized by society." I used the term along the lines of "terrorist method of enforcing social domination." I was WRONG to do this. I APOLOGIZE for doing this. The word inflamed the situation and made a comparison which I no long believe is valid.


 * That said, the only one myself and others have accused during all of this is Justforasecond. This user has devoted himself/herself to destroying Deeceevoice and a look at his/her other article edits and actions indicates that racism is a key reason for doing this. JFAS keeps stirring this up, going to DCV's talk page and not letting the RfAr run its course. Anyway, see my further comments at the DCV arb. I hope you will actually use this forum to talk about all of this and help heal this situation. Otherwise the ill will can only continue.--Alabamaboy 19:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Alabamaboy, your apology and efforts at healing might strike me as a little more genuine if you had directed them towards me, rather than other users that you haven't targeted your accusations of racism.  These continued allegations are not helping to heal things.  First because they are incorrect, second because they constitute a continued attack on me, third, because though you have distanced yourself from her, you haven't expressed any distaste for deeceevoice's use of words like "crackkka".  If you would have just left off the first three sentences of the second paragraph above, you could have promoted "healing" without trashing me in the process.  If you haven't already, I suggest you read the details of the incident from "other article edits" you are using to label me a racist.  If you still think this is the case, please contact me and explain why.  Otherwise it is hard for me to see how this is AGF at all.  -Justforasecond 02:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)  Unhelpful comment removed Justforasecond 21:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's rather self-centered of you. So any attempt at healing all of this division is worthless unless I apologize to you? That's funny since you have attacked me at every turn throughout this, such as this little comment: "I also find it a little more than farsical that Alabamaboy has said repeatedly that he will not take place in this RfAr but has made several statements here, now because he can "not remain silent". Only today did he remove his statements about this forum is a "lynching" and "racist attack", while leaving a statement saying he believes "racism is at the core" of editors supporting the RfAr. The about-face on DCV's conduct struck me as odd. Were he really "disgusted" with her conduct earlier, it was his duty, as an administrator, to say or do something in line with that. Instead he has tried to stop and distract this process at each turn, even contacting an arbitrator to object to the case being accepted at all. -Justforasecond 21:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)" Basically you are saying that it is okay for you to question my motives but if I question your motives and believe they are racist then I am totally wrong? Tell you what: Are you willing to also apologize and move on from this, to admit that you have also said things you shouldn't have said? If so, maybe we can meet on some middle ground. Otherwise, I stand by my statements regarding you.--Alabamaboy 18:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to end this rather than continue it, as it is unproductive for all. Some of my comments have not helped Wikipedia.  I do believe, wholeheartedly, that deeceevoice is an editor that should not be here, but I regret not working harder to mend fences with Alabamaboy.  As far as I know, he is a fine editor but disagreed in the past with dispute resolution process directed towards deeceevoice, and with my reaction to statements therein.   I have additionally offered to remove any statements about Alabamaboy if asked, without arguing truth or untruth, but the same end may be accomplished by this statement.  While I would appreciate it if some comments aimed at me were removed or altered, this is not a quid-pro-quo and should not be viewed as such.  If Alabamaboy subsequently retracts any statements that is his own good faith action.   Justforasecond 21:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, it's funny how conversation and dialogue can ease issues and tension. Recent communications (including some private e-mails) with Justforasecond have convinced me that it is highly likely JFAS was pursing the RfC and RfAr against Deeceevoice for what he/she saw as worthwhile reasons, just as myself and many of those opposed to these actions were also doing so for what we saw as worthwhile reasons. I regret making assumptions about JFAS (namely that his actions were caused by racism) and extend my apology to him/her. I hope JFAS will continue to take part in this dialogue to help heal Wikipedia. It's time to move past this.--Alabamaboy 01:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This dialogue is remarkable, and very nice to see on both sides. --phh 09:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

not really involved, but...
Happened on this, starting from reading the cool article... And I must say that DCV has brought this problem onto herself. I know that saying that sounds really bad, but still.... Well, I'll be frank. Coming from that article, we see someone who assumes that disagreement with her is automatically a)false, and b)racist. Its entirely possible that DCV feels that way because of a long history of harassment and hostility... but do you really think it helps? Between that kind of behavior and her userpage (which is designed to elicit hostile response imho)... It appears that DCV has long ago given up on trying to build an encyclapedia and has gone into combat/prove a point mode...

Now ya might wonder what the hell my point is here. Its simply this: I think it'll be impossible to 'heal wikipedia' if one of the main voices in the conflict has decided that it serves her cause better to fight.

to be more clear; theres over a years worth of hard feelings in some of these fights...  but coming in late, its easy to look at peoples actions without the obscuring haze of the past actions...  I think that many of the people against her are over the line. But that doesn't reduce the fact that she is too.

(For the record, I don't think that this kind of a thing should go to the point of arbitration, either... if both sides are willing to take part in the RFC or mediation processes) Windsagio 21:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Race matters
I actually want to disagree with something said above, doubtless with all good intention, by Rob Church, who writes "Your nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, place of residence, favourite colour, preferred hot beverage or even, god help us, your favourite sex position; have nothing to do with your ability to write an encyclopedia and are irrelevant."

If this were true, this encyclopedia could be successfully written entirely by straight white American males, living in the midwest and never having travelled elsewhere (I won't continue on to the sillier examples). Or simply that it could be written with no Israelis, or no Palestinian Arabs, or no Serbs, or no Catalans. Or no Black people. And I firmly believe that if the project is to succeed, it cannot be written that way. There is knowledge, and there is ability to identify and detect certain biases, that are pretty much unique to each such group. It's not that there is no outsider with a clue&mdash;I know my way moderately well around a few cultures that are not my own&mdash;but what passes for "common knowledge" in one such group may either be accurate but little-known outside that group, or, conversely, dead wrong. In the former case, exclusion of the group will mean that knowledge is unlikely to find its way into Wikipedia. In the latter case, it means that too much of a monoculture leads to blindness.

Three concrete examples: (1) our many articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have benefitted enormously from having contributors who identify in varying degrees with each side in the conflict. They have also benefitted from having contributors who feel no personal stake in the matter. (2) It is hard to imagine how an article like Spanish profanity would come together decently without native Spanish-speakers. (3) It is extremely unlikely that white people will ever do as good a job of writing about the Historically Black Colleges and Universities as black people; and it is unlikely that in any significant number they will be inclined even to attempt it.

We need to have contributors from a broad range of backgrounds feel comfortable at Wikipedia, not just because it is moral, but because it benefits the project. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Complete agreement. - FrancisTyers 01:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree that having editors from many backgrounds is helpful for neutrality. However this idea can go too far- in the unfortunate RFC I remember some references to "black articles" or "white articles".  There is no such thing.  This is the English Wikipedia, not the Black Wikipedia or White Wikipedia.  Personal experiences of editors don't matter that much.  After all, we use reliable sources, not our own experiences, right?  Friday (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, we use reliable sources. But (1) you need to know a topic well enough to know where to start looking for sources and (2) you need to know a topic well enough to judge your sources. Let me take what I think should be a relatively un-loaded example. BTfromLA and I were both around the scene during the early years of punk rock. Either of us can usually spot a dubious addition to Punk rock (at least with reference to pre-1980) the moment we glance at it.


 * There are topics where this knowledge resides almost entirely within a given ethnic group. Not to mention the interest in the topic relevant to write the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree too. We need folks from all walks, be they African-American, white, asian, or Israeli.  We must not harbor users that try to get African-American editors to leave wikipedia and disparage outreach efforts, call white editors "crackkkas", make fun of Asian genitalia, or use phrases like "Zionist Azzholes". removed unhelpful comment  -Justforasecond 23:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Respect
Just want to say we all respect you for getting a dialogue between both sides. This was arguably like the wikipedia version of the OJ trial in some ways :) Peace and respect. --Urthogie 21:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment
I just stumbled across all this also... Looked at some of the material and stuff... very interesting, because I think, with the influx of new users, a couple of problems arise (or might arise):

1) More influx of POV pushers. On the racism side, I don't think that organized groups are going to be a huge problem. I've been peripherally involved over at Kwanzaa dealing with an organized campaign of white freepers who are apparently just driven nuts by the existance of this holiday. But overt organized racism POVers are going to be badly outnumbered.

But a real problem that could get worse are unorganized casual racists, because they represent probably a majority of the population, at least here in America. By casual racists I mean, not your Aryan Nation types but just your typical yob who, without really thinking or caring that much about it, internalize the mainstream-media view of black America.

I don't know the answer to this. Some of these people can be educated; some can be shamed; many may need to be shown the door. And certainly constant patrol and article work by work of excellent, erudite anti-racist edits (like User:deeceevoice) are important and should be recognized and supported.

Maybe a Race Project to bring together people who are good at and willing to do one (or more) of these three things: (a) article work, patrol, maintenance (and improvement too), (b) engagement of borderline types who can maybe be pushed along into becoming useful editors, and (c) swiftt documentation and removal of problem editors who don't seem likely to be worth engaging (sometimes you tell with one edit), and a policy update to make this possible, if needed. Not many are likely to be good at all three, so split up the tasks.

That's all I have to say about racism. Just to finish a though on User:deeceevoice in particular:

2) On the OTHER hand, the OTHER big problem likely to stem from an influx of new users is the degradation of dialogue here, the devolvement from from erudite discussion to talk-radio shouting and the consequent loss of the maintainability of consensus as a ruling ethic. That is very destructive to the the 'pedia, potentially, because there is no other good way to run this project.

It's funny, isn't it, how we can be great people with important skills making important contributions to a community but also have blind spots the size of Jupiter. Although editors like User:deeceevoice are VERY important to the ant-racism effort, it's EVEN MORE important that the project not shelter people who destroy civility by talking like that to other editors. You can always get good editors who don't have an attitude problem. Racism can damage and has damanged the project. Allowing over-the-top incivility can utterly destroy it. Damn shame, though. Herostratus 14:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I just found this: WP:CSBOT.