User:Sswonk/The Real Plague PCR

Here's an unsolicited reprint, with my comments following, of an essay penned by User:Sarah777 on a subpage of her userspace entitled "The Real Plague". The abbreviation "PCR" in the title of this page refers to polymerase chain reaction, the process invented in 1984 which allows DNA to be replicated synthetically. Words, rather than DNA, are being replicated here; I point out the reference in the title to the plague, which is thought to have been caused by a microbe, something that PCR might be applied to. PCR is also applied to antibiotic organisms, which the essay is comparable to. It is the writer's essay, rather than the problem it describes, that I am hereby replicating. The hope here is that some crack of recognition will appear in the skulls of otherwise closed minds who read it. I am also hoping the page, which I am hosting in my userspace in an effort to improve the encyclopedia through dissemination of a well-reasoned critique of its operation and trends within it, will not be deleted. This is not any violation of any userspace rules that I am aware of, and it does not constitute any form of personal attack. The full text of Sarah's essay as it was preserved on the servers in the earliest hour of 21 January 2010 UTC is reprinted in full below, enclosed in a light gray tinted box with a solid dark green border below the title:

=The Real Plague= '''This is written on invitation. I thought I'd start with a rebuttal of the rather myopic essay by User:Moreschi. As this is open-source I have borrowed his excellent structure but altered the words somewhat. I hope to demonstrate to those who can listen and understand that there are two sides to every coin''' Sarah777 (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's very own plague is Anglo-American nationalism (aka Imperialism). The smug, inherent assumptions of objectiveness and cultural superiority and neutrality of the majority of editors writing in the areas of history, politics and current affairs on EN:Wiki poses a colossal threat to Wikipedia's content and standards of user conduct. Religiously motivated editors can often, though not always, be included in the same category. However, those of religious motivation cause fewer problems than the out-and-out Western chauvinist: it is only when religious faith blends with mysticism that problems arise, usually in cases of a national "manifest destiny" where pseudoscience is used as justification.

The infection
Why do Anglo-American nationalists come to Wikipedia? What is an Anglo-American nationalist, anyway?

As Muhammad says, the nationalist is he who supports his people in an unjust cause. On Wikipedia, this translates to rewriting history, and tampering with facts and verified information. The Anglo-American nationalist will attempt to justify the current activities of Britain and America, but most particularly he will attempt to expunge those blots that all nations have from Wikipedia's recording of his history. With a few exceptions, much of our Anglo-American nationalist editing focuses on historical subjects. The Anglo-American views himself as on a crusade for his values of reason and enlightenment, and is conditioned to view his culture as the pinnacle of civilisation and more importantly, comes to believe that his partisan nationalist views actually represent moderation in a world of extremes. He is immune to reason.

Wikipedia represents a singularly attractive and open target for Imperialists, and it is worth thinking about why. Historical revisionism of a particularly fringecruft-esque type is, as a general rule, the aim of the Anglo-American nationalist (not that he thinks of it in this way: the mainstream Wiki editor views himself as seeking The Truth and representing mainstream, moderate opinion). It is his opportunity to set the historical record straight (straight from his point of view, that is). Advocates of other nationalisms are unlikely to be able to get a book published in English, and certainly not by a major publishing house or the Corporate media that will have the ability to spread his views to a wide audience. So, the mainstream Anglosphere editor concludes that what he doesn’t find on the nightly news or on his supermarket newsstand must be the isolated ravings of an extremist. Wikipedia offers a vast readership, has no formal editorial oversight, and requires no qualifications to begin. Not only that: Wikipedia is a vastly influential website with significant socio-political clout on a global scale, is widely used as a first reference, and among the more foolish is taken as an ultra-reliable source. In the parochial view of the Nationalist American (or Briton) it appears that attractions of Wiki for those tempted to push a different (non-Anglo) nationalist point of view are obvious.

The symptoms
Disruptive editing by Anglosphere true believers is marked by several characteristics.
 * A dogged determination to exclude what he imagines to be fringe beliefs. Common observations can be deemed “original research” or “original synthesis” in order to suppress the point of view in question. This is the feature of the Anglo-American nationalist: denying facts that are not recorded in the English “mainstream” media or in what is termed “reputable” academia. This is greatly facilitated by the fact the parochial Anglosphere consensus infects the Western Corporate media and State or Corporate funded academia as much as it does Wiki. Indeed there is a self-reinforcing cycle at work; as in any culture. The norms are taught, absorbed and then the world is interpreted through this nationalist prism and recycled through the media to reinforce the original myth.
 * Edit warring, incivility, and personal attacks. Sanctified by the “Community”, objective application of Wikipedia's rules, most especially the stated policy of WP:NPOV. are ignored because the mainstream Anglo-American nationalist truly believes that his perspective is the only one consistent with WP:NPOV.
 * The viewing of other editors exclusively through the prism of what he imagines is mainstream, moderate opinion. Those who oppose the Anglo-nationalist simply have to be "biased", “extremist” and “pov pushers”.
 * Tendentious editing in all its forms.
 * This includes accusing others of "vandalism", "disruption" and "incivility". The Anglo-nationalist truth will out!
 * The absolute rejection of all scholarship not coming from authors of the same culture that our nationalist is whitewashing. (See “List of Massacres” for examples).
 * The propounding of illogical notions of “consensus” (ultimately simply a crude vote on Wiki - despite endless denials and claims that it is something more). This accompanied by a certain mysticism that triumphantly eliminates logic.
 * Refusing to accept as “reliable” sources other than those which by definition are part of the self-reinforcing pov cycle discussed above.
 * Abusing policies like WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF by enforcing them in a totally arbitrary manner against those who don’t share the Anglo-American Nationalist myths; branding such people as “extremists”, “vandals”, “disruptors” and so forth when the real aim is to eliminate problematic opinions which the Anglo-American mainstream finds unpalatable.

The failure of the immune system
Wikipedia is singularly ill-adapted to deal with Anglo-American POV. The Arbitration Committee, under pressure from a large number of Anglo-American nationalists are being pressured into blocking any perceived opinions that fall outside the Anglo-American POV ghetto, even though neutrality is supposed to be our most important principle. As a result, Admins with little knowledge are armed with Blocking tools and let loose to reinforce the uniform Anglo-American worldview across Wiki. Blocks are increasingly readily endorsed, no matter how unjustified, largely because the majority of editors who buy into the Anglo-American Nationalist mythology attack every alternative view even though most are not familiar with the subject matter, and either cannot or will not properly check the issues concerned. They are culturally and intellectually unsuited to address either the causes or symptoms of their nationalist disease. Typically these “crusader Admins” often, in fact, infringe user conduct rules, but this is ignored or downplayed. He can expect the support of the “consensus” of his fellow believers not to use their powers on one of their own.

The cure
There are no easy solutions, but I have tried to show that you cannot reason with the Anglo-American crusaders. Simple debate will not work, and nor will instruction in the ways and ethos of Wikipedia, no matter how detailed and protracted. Such things are insignificant to the Anglo-American nationalist when set against his mission to rid Wiki of competing views. And as he won’t be policed by his fellow policemen his type is becoming rampant and running out of control on Wiki.

There remains the appeal to the substantial cadre of rational, open-minded Admins. But increasingly they are subject to veiled (or not so veiled) threats if they intervene in support of a political “deviant”. Bans (both from topics and from the site) and limitations are being handed out with ever-increasing frequency and excellent editors are being driven from the project. Arbitration is an incredibly time-consuming process that wastes time, drains energy, reduces contributions to the encyclopedia, and is invariably an ugly scrap. Unsurprisingly, and with justification, many users confronted with threatening Anglo-American pov warriors give up rather than go for formal arbitration. This is unlikely to change.

Indeed; in an essay written from the Anglo-American nationalist perspective User:Moreschi advocates use of the administrator's noticeboard as a useful tool to more efficiently eradicate all suspect viewpoints and ensure the unchallenged dominance of Anglo-American pov across EN:Wiki. The objective of this is to put even more power in the hands of administrators, as the author is of the view that even the current arbitrary powers are not adequate to sufficiently enforce Anglo-American ideology on EN:Wiki. As Wiki spreads and increasing numbers from outside the Anglo-American cultural village become involved a certain panic is gripping the current establishment that the cosy Anglo-American assumptions are under massive attack. Rather than embrace a plurality of competing views and reach a GENUINE consensus people like User:Moreschi seek to repel the boarders and keep Wiki locked in a sort of Imperialist Anglo-American Zanadu where editors of the same tribe can compliment one another on their openness and tolerance; like Civil Administrators at cocktail party in the Raj.

Formal content arbitration is a code for political censorship. It would be decided by those who have problems with reality as it is; not as their nationalist mythology would imagine it. Binding content solutions issued by members of such a homogeneous sub-set of humanity will destroy Wiki and reduce it to an online version of the Voice of America. Such a system will not work, cannot work, without destroying everything we thought Wiki stood for. Too often the Anglo-American nationalists win simply by abusing their power in an arbitrary way until all opposition is driven away, when reasonable people find that the demands to “obey without question” become too oppressive to take.

Comment: Essentially, (disclaiming any bias that may leak in should I attempt to do so), I could have written the essay myself: that is how close in agreement with it I am. Although I have lived in the United States my entire life, I find the essay to be entirely factual and well reasoned. Too little attention is paid to the possibility of the existence of bias within the sociolinguistics of English against speakers living in less powerful nations than the UK and the US. Both, after all, sit on the UN permanent Security Council, with permanent veto power. The words penned by the editor above are not the ravings of a lunatic by any means, although some upon having read it have responded saying nearly as much. For reference I am also recording the locations on the en.wikipedia site where the original essay appears in a list of "What links here", where you can find further rational thought and writings posted by Sarah in her own defense.

Sarah does not need a defender. She does exceedingly well defending her stance, without assistance. Nor, as of this writing, is she aware that I have preserved it in my userspace, posted as a reminder to myself and the community about the problems she addresses. I have discussed several aspects of what she is writing about in other venues within the pages of this site, including questioning her "painting with a broad brush" regarding the term Anglo-American. After having read the above essay again, and her arguments at the pages which link to it, I have decided to put aside those questions without further comment. Sswonk (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What links to the original essay:

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren User:Moreschi/The Plague Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive423 Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive481 Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive580

Note: Although it is possible that this page may seldom be viewed, if it is and a reader would like to comment, please do so on the associated talk page rather than below this line.