Overleg gebruiker:Elian/Information gathering

With Sander Spek I don't see what the discussion in August 2004 has to do with the current turmoil. In that discussion a lot of people were involved. It starts with Wvr stating that the article is bullshit, Oscar reacts to that, after which react (in the following sequence): Muijz, Jcwf, Fruggo, Bemoeial, Elly and Waerth. I also don't understand why only Muijz is quoted here. Fruggo 5 nov 2004 22:27 (CET)

The relationship between the discussion about the Collaboratie article and the current turmoil is that the heated debate in August may have contributed to an atmosphere of controversy. In my opinion some of the remarks in the discussion showed a lack of respect to other Wikipedians. The good thing is, that the debate was decided on the Talk page (overlegpagina), and not by an edit-war on the article. Johan Lont

---

I (Johan Lont) find it instructive to see how that particular dispute evolved. The issue was a short section containing a piece of history. There were two opposing points of view (in my own words):

1. the section is a valid example of the concept 'Collaboratie' and that information is especially useful because it shows that collaboration occurred in all strata of society. Some 87 percent of the Dutch population is indoctrinated by biased (bevooroordeelde) studies and propaganda.
2. the section contains incorrect information and is an unfair accusation of a widely respected person.

The person that held position 2) branded the piece 'unfounded bullshit' in the strongest terms, which set the tone for a heated debate. It implies: "The author of this section added unfounded bullshit to Wikipedia". After that came an exchange of 'evidence', 'sources', and discussion. One person accused the other of 'not reading the evidence'. The other attacks the first of being indoctrinated. Both take the trouble to present facts and evidence, but neither of them is convinced by the arguments of the other.

In the discussion, I recognize two common types of reasoning:

• "The opinion that I presented is obviously true, in light of the evidence. Every intelligent person must be able to see that. If someone disagrees, he must be either
  • stupid, or
  • conciously misleading (lying).
• "The opinion I presented is clearly supported by the evidence. Conflicting information that is presented as 'fact' must be the result of
  • a biased (bevooroordeeld) view, or
  • propaganda, or
  • misinterpretation. "

Important lessons (in my opinion)

• Respect other users of Wikipedia:
  • Don't say, "This text is bullshit", if someone intended it to be a serious contribution
  • Don't ridiculize, such as saying
    • "That is a funny statement" (if the statement was intended as serious)
  • Don't say that another person is 'biased', indoctrinated,

• Don't accuse another user of wrongful intentions, even if you suspect them of wrongful intentions.
  • Assume that something was intended as a serious contribution, even if you think that the author was crazy, and the text makes no sense. Exception: if the authors intention was to add bullshit, for example "dkje ioudgj sdeuih JIMMY IS A DONKEY $$%^&".
  • Don't accuse another user of making propaganda.

• Be aware of the fact that what you consider to be an obvious truth, can be considered wrong by another person.

Johan Lont 8 nov 2004 11:24 (CET)

Johan Lont 8 nov 2004 11:24 (CET)

About the List of the conflicts

(Contribution by: Gebruiker:Johan Lont)
The following points were added to the list of conflicts:

• october 30 - Muijz gets a second ban from Jimbo Wales personally for insulting GerardM on IRC (added by anonymous user 62.195.146.66 on 3 nov 2004 18:34 )
• november 8 - Muijz gets a third ban from Jimbo Wales personally for incivility and insulting behaviour
• november 17 - It transpires that a private row of Muijz has "merrited" two articles on wikipedia. The person involved has asked for help from the moderators in resolving this issue. GerardM has started a discussion that may lead to the permanent ban of Muijz.

Remarks:

• 1. The items 'november 8 and november 17' were added by user GerardM, despite Elian's request "(Please just link to the relevant page + one-line summary by someone not involved ;-)"
• 2. Those items looks like they belong more on a "list of what Muijz did wrong". I consider that not fair. This is a list of conflicts. Where is the conflict in "Muijz gets a third ban for incivility"?
• 3. I consider it incorrect to place here information about the reasons why Jimbo Wales did something, unless Jimbo can confirm that that was indeed his reason.
• 4. november 17 - this appears to be about a conflict about the articles Hein van Meeteren that Muijz hasn't edited since September 1st and Digitale Burgerbeweging Nederland that he edited only once after September 1st. There is indeed a conflict about the contents of these articles, and that is handled appropriately by Gebruiker:Walter.

Johan Lont 18 nov 2004 18:18 (CET)

I do agree with Johan! I asked GerardM one hour before he made these additions to the list to stop the discussion he started about the Hein van Meeteren issue in how you call that in English: the gossip-room of the pub?. I'm sorry for GerardM. But I don't think this addition is constructive. And I do agree with GerardM on the other side that the troubles we have with Muijz are serious. But it's no good if GerardM says this too often. (is my poor English clear enough to make you understand what I exactly mean; if no: let it know). - Dick Bos 19 nov 2004 21:36 (CET)

I am aware of what the impact is of what I do. I knew it to be controversial. And have been proven right. Triumphant? Bah, it is a sorry state we are in hardly something to be happy about. Provocative to you, I did not adress you; I did adress the nl:wikipedia crowd. Please look up wikt:provoceren, I cannot even provoke you as there is no sanction greater than what I am asking anyway. To be brutally honest to make me HAPPY, you would remain a wikipedia editor and we would forget about this whole thing not because of you being inactive but because there is an end to this never ending string of quarrels and incidents that you are involved in. The reason I ask for this ban is because I am convinced that this incident is not the last. Your challenge is to prove me wrong. GerardM 20 nov 2004 09:48 (CET)