Wikipedia has decided not to
publish my revision of their extant article
about Pacifica Forum.
This has several consequences :
( 1 ) The decision of the
editors lets stand an existing article that is
defamatory to several
people associated with Pacifica. Inasmuch as
I am one of those people
this does not make me very happy.
( 2 ) It would have been an advantage for many people to
have had
a greatly revised account of the Forum to refer to if,
for no other reason.,
far greater accuracy / objectivity about the group. This
will not be happening
any time soon, so it seems, and false impressions of PF
will persist.
( 3 ) E-mail
"conversations" with two of the editors have convinced me
that
the Wikipedia conception
of objectivity is far less than optimal. For some
types of articles their
conception may be adequate; in this
category
should go stories about
the sciences ( some sciences, anyway ), stories
about cities or states or
countries, etc, strictly factual stuff, and
anything else that relies
just about entirely on hard data. But beyond
that, "buyer beware."
Wikipedia is Left-wing in
its outlook and its
editors regard "objective"
to mean "in sync with the
views and values
of the Democratic Party" or,
perhaps, with the views
of non-affiliated
Leftists, but Leftists nonetheless.
About this, I should have
guessed. Wikipedia is San Francisco based.
Duh, few cities in
America are as politically Left-wing, and local media
is completely in the tank
for Political Correctness, the Leftist version of
multi-culturalism,
opponents of conservatism, irreligion --except faiths
"approved" by Hollywood,
the viewpoint of the New York Times,
and etc.
What MUST be kept in mind
is the fact that all of this is conceived by
Wikipedia's editors as
unbiased, truthful, objective, and so forth.
They simply are unable
--because of their mindset-- to conceive
that their worldview and
ideas are anything but unbiased. Hence they
use the vocabulary of
even-handedness, objectivity, truthfulness, etc,
all the while actually
meaning this : Wikipedia reflects the
views of
some approximation of the
scholarly community which is Left of Center
or, in cases, hard Left.
If something is not
Leftist in outlook, maybe better, which can be interpreted
as Leftist in outlook by
the editors, then it is, by definition, Right-wing,
neo-conservative, or even
extremist and highly biased.
Also keep in mind a value
of the academic Left, a value that I share and
which I think is
generally all for the good: Encyclopedic
knowledge is
essential, valuable,
useful, etc, and the more of it the better. I'm not sure
how far to go in
generalizing this principle but do have the sense that
it is not nearly as much
a factor on the Right. That is, far fewer Rightists
see great value in
encyclopedic knowledge. If I'm wrong, OK, make
a case to another effect,
I am more than willing to listen.
Anyway, Wikipedia regards
it as a High Good to cover almost any topic.
The catch is that the
viewpoint of authors must be, to some or great extent,
Left-wing in spirit and
perspective. OR something that a Left-winger
can read as if
it is Leftist in outlook.
The question is the use
one makes of collected knowledge. Obviously it
is not necessary in any
sense to put knowledge to Left-wing use. Indeed,
in the past, the
situation was reversed, it was the Right that was most
encyclopedic in
outlook. Traditional conservatism requires it. But
populist
conservatism does not, as
we all know.
This all hit me when one
of the editors complained that I had repeatedly
"attacked" the SPLC
--Southern Poverty Law Center. Actually, while
I certainly have feelings
of revulsion for the SPLC and regard it as little
more than an organ for
Left-wing bigotry ( different than Right-wing bigotry,
but bigotry nonetheless
), at no point did I "attack" the organization.
I pointed out the
inaccuracies it offers the public as "facts" and
questioned
its judgement calls, and
that was that. I deliberately did not attack
the SPLC --in order to
maintain what Wikipedia calls NPOV,
a Neutral Point of View.
Not how my article was
interpreted at Wikipedia. For at least the editors
with whom I had dealings,
the SPLC is some kind of sacred trust, and seems
to be off limits to
serious criticism --except criticisms, presumably, that
might
be offered by Leftists of
the group, on Left-derived grounds.
Such matters will become
clear if you read the following exchanges between
myself and the editors.
It may prove to be a
benefit that my article was not published by Wikipedia.
At such time as I may
have an independent platform available, where
I would feel free to
speak my mind, it could be a major advantage to
openly criticize
Wikipedia for, among other things, false representation.
In other words, my
attitude throughout the e-mail exchanges was
NOT one of deference.
Quite the opposite; I was not in the least
reluctant to point out
the contradictions in some of their policies
and did so. If they took
this the wrong way and were "offended,"
well, screw them. But I
don't know this, it is necessary to judge
things by thinking about
how these exchanges ended and
inferring what seems
logical.
In any case, I offered
them honest constructive criticisms.
Some of their policies
are stupid. Some of their policies
also result in publicized
defamations of character even if
the editors were not in the least
responsible for writing
the content of those defamations.
I was not in any way
reluctant to speak the truth as I see it
for a simple reason: It
is axiomatic that no large-scale print journal
or electronic publication
will publish anything I write, no matter how
well written, filled with
insights, creative, or thoroughly researched.
This is a fact that I must put up with.
Therefore, I have no
incentive to compromise about much of anything.
My attitude is :
"Here is the truth to the best of my ability to express it.
Here are my best ideas.
No-oneis spared my
honest criticisms.
Take it or leave it. I
play by my rules,
no-one else's rules.
You can have
conscientious work
that I prepare which
-I think,
objectively- has real
value.
If you don't want it, go
f**k yourself."
In short, it is now
possible, if future circumstances warrant,
to -metaphorically- hit
the editors over the head with a club
that they have provided me.
It would have been useful
to me to have seen my article published
by Wikipedia, at least to
try and clear my name of association with
some members of Pacifica
Forum who, at the time, as now, I totally
disagree with and whose
values I regard as essentially sick.
PF was a free speech group, after all, and that meant
that
there was sometimes wide
divergence of opinion. In particular those
who most identified
themselves as "anti-Zionist" I regarded as
morally
warped, psychologically infantile, and hopelessly uncritical
in outlook. In two cases
the anti-Zionism in question was de facto
anti-Semitism;
in the other cases it was not since these others
had Jewish relatives or
past marital relationships. But all forms of
anti-Zionism were thinly
disguised Old Right 'philosophy,'
and I openly objected to
it.
But PF was NOT a Left-wing group open only to
other Leftists,
that claimed to be a free speech group. Pacifica
actually was a
free speech group with
sometimes very different viewpoints
expressed by members of
the Forum, including a Jewish member.
My article was intended
to put all of this into sharp focus, unlike
the present article that
totally ignores the fact that some speakers
opposed the anti-Zionists
and expressed altogether different
views before the group
at many times. For Wikipedia, with
its Left-wing editors, it
is legitimate to smear anyone it
regards as Right-wing,
including political Independents,
and facts that disprove
such allegations can
be
treated as if they do not
exist.
However, there now are
other uses for the fact that I owe no debt
of gratitude to Wikipedia
and, in the bargain, have been educated
to realities that
previously had escaped me.
I will continue to refer
to Wikipedia articles that, in my judgement,
are factually correct, or at least provide verifiable
facts. And, clearly,
some Wikipedia articles
contain information found nowhere else.
What is good about Wikipedia remains as good as ever. But
I now
realize that its editors have biases that are as big as
biases get , and
think that their pretence to unbiased objectivity is
hypocritical.
Unfortunate, but true.
Billy
=====================================
> > Login error
> > There is no user by the name
[email protected]_
(
mailto:[email protected]) .
> >
> > I have had this URL since 2005 and it has been
valid all that time.
> >
> > The article about Pacifica Forum was obviously
written by a detractor
> > who does not begin to understand what the group
was all about.
> > And, not incidentally, the article talks about PF
as if it still holds
> > meetings;
> > actually it ceased to exist in late 2010.
> >
> > Yes, some members were Right-wing zealots.
However, it was
> > a free speech group and there were other
viewpoints at all the times.
> > These other viewpoints sometimes dominated
discussions.
> >
> > To characterize the Forum as white racist is
inaccurate and defamatory.
> > Pacifica was a free speech group.
> >
> > I was a member, from mid 2008 until early 2010,
and I gave
> > 13 presentations to the Forum and think I know
exactly what was
> > going on. My viewpoint, not incidentally, is that
of a political
> > Independent
> > who is ANTI-Nazi and anti-Communist. I also am
opposed to
> > all forms of racism and ethnic bigotry. Also
FYI, I am a former
> > college teacher of social science, religion, and
history. No idea
> > what credentials the author of the Pacifica Forum
article has
> > but his /her viewpoint is decidedly "Political
Correctness Left"
> > with no pretense of objectivity.
> >
> > There are multiple errors in the article that I
would like to correct.
> >
> > Thank you for your consideration
> >
> > Billy Rojas
Cleanup[edit]
I see you're having some technical difficulty.
I restored the original article and moved your proposed
re-write to your own user space at User:Wilhelm
Rojas/Pacifica Forum. You can work on it there at
your leisure. It was definitely not ready for publishing
in the main article space.
I also removed the commentary you added to the beginning
and end, and moved it to the article discussion page Talk:Pacifica
Forum#Proposed re-write. I have commented on a few
problems I observed also.
When you are logged in to your account, you have a link
at the top of your browser window called "Sandbox". This
is your private space where you can work on drafts and
practice editing. You can also create draft articles under
your username, as I did in the case of User:Wilhelm
Rojas/Pacifica Forum instead of using your sandbox.
Either way, it's a better idea to work on the re-write in
your own user space, and then announce your revision on
the article talk page for others to review. That's what I
did for you just now. ~Amatulić
(talk)
13:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Personal Opinion vs Honest Reporting[edit]
It would be good if I was told exactly what the problems
are rather than need to try and puzzle out what "personal
opinions" is supposed to mean.
Obviously, since much of the article relies on personal
observations there will be some admixture of private POV
in with verifiable facts. But the goal was to keep this
sort of thing to an absolute minimum. However, it was my
objective throughout to clearly identify subjective views
by all concerned, by such locutions as "it seemed to
Pacifica members that..." I mean, I was there, I talked
with Pacifica people repeatedly and always tried to gauge
their opinions objectively. After all, I'm a journalist
myself. I understand the rules for good reporting.
To the full extent that accessible published sources
allowed -to repeat, a lot is based on first hand
observation for which no published sources exist-
everything was substantiated by the observations of
journalists. Or, in some cases, by direct quotes of
participants.
Now I'm supposed to guess what is being objected to ?
I am more than willing to self-edit. But first I would
like to know exactly what it is that you or anyone else
identifies as problems.
I also was a college teacher. When grading papers I never
would have made a student guess what his or her problems
were. I spelled things out so that there would be no
mistake about my intended meaning.
For the Pacifica article my goal was to be as objective
as possible. All subjective views were, I thought, clearly
identified as such. In case this is a conceptual
difficulty, a clearly labeled subjective opinion is an
objective fact if, indeed, the reader is told, for
example, "according to so-and-so the speaker was
anguished." That was so-and-so's opinion. It was reported
in the article because it is plausible and, if true, which
it seems to be, it helps explain what happened at that
time.
If there are problems I simply could not see as I wrote
it would be ever so nice to know what you think these are.
thank you Wilhelm
Rojas (talk)
00:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, just letting you know that someone heard your
concerns. I'll take a look at the article later and tell
you what I find. Howicus
(talk)
01:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- sorry, I mean I'll look at your proposed rewrite Howicus
(talk) 01:03, 9
June 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I read over the article. One problem is the
article is full of attacks against critics of the group,
starting by calling the SPLC "grossly inaccurate" with
no citation, and getting worse from there. The article
digresses to defend David Irving and attack the SPLC and
CALC. And then there's the part about Pacifica Forum
member Billy Rojas, which I assume is you. If you are
the Billy Rojas in the article, I doubt you would be
able to write the article neutrally, due to your
inherent conflict of interest (see WP:COI).
Howicus
(talk)
04:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
After several hours of writing to Howicus and his
spending considerable
time as well, I now wonder about the feasibility of
seeking to have my
article published in Wikipedia. It would be helpful
for you (or others)
to read the exchanges between Howicus and myself but
let me try and
spell things out in somewhat different terms here.
NPOV is a desirable standard; that much makes
perfectly good sense, and
for an encyclopedia ought to ordinarily be regarded
essential. If it was me,
I would allow for certain classes of exceptions, only
as exceptions, and
only for certain authors, but nonetheless...
For example, an article about humor written by a
current writer with
the skills of someone like Mark Twain or George
Carlin. It would be
expected that such authors would not necessarily
follow all the rules
religiously or might well stretch them to
their satisfaction. Or an article
about journalism by someone like HL Mencken, or an
article about
the US military written by General Petraeus.
The example used in discussion with Howicus was that
of a hypothetical
editor of an encyclopedia of religion signing up the
Dalai Lama to write
an article about Vajrayana Buddhism. Granted, his
contribution would
reflect his long experience as a Tibetan Buddhist,
and also granted that
he would doubtless express his biases, but the value
of such an article
would be such that they would outweigh other
considerations by
a very large factor and add great value to the
encyclopedia. If it was
felt that the Dalai Lama's views were too skewed, a
remedy would
be easy enough to provide, another article on the
same subject written
by someone with a different POV, or even by a critic
of the Dalai Lama.
For a potentially infinite encyclopedia like
Wikipedia this could be
understood as added value, and anything but a
liability.
The "no original research" rule is preposterous if
taken as an absolute.
Another example used in exchanges with Howicus was
that of an astronaut
who might write an article about the International
Space Station. By the
No Original Research criterion, Wikipedia would turn
down such an
article ??? That would be inconceivable to me but it
does seem to
be your policy and if this is an Absolute then we
must part company.
Before going that far a few other observations might
do everyone
with an interest in the true story of Pacifica Forum
some good.
(1) There seems to be strong interest in preserving
the extant article
about the Forum as the canonical Wikipedia story.
This, of course,
is your decision to make. However, that article is
seriously biased
toward the political Left. It may not be as far Left
as some writers
might put things but the tilt is unmistakable. The
only way for someone
to read that article as "unbiased" is if he or she is
also a Left-winger.
Which is not the complaint of a conservative against
liberals but of
a political Independent who has no use for either the
Left or the Right.
Its just that in this case Left-wing biases are
evident from start to finish.
The problem with the current article is also that it
is filled with inaccurate
statements and is misleading, especially in the
blatantly false impression
it gives that the only speakers the Forum scheduled
were Rightists,
which is demonstrably false.
(2) I am aware of attempts by some people associated
with Pacifica
to edit the article from a VERY different perspective
than mine. These
exemplify the anti-Zionists who belonged to the group
in the past. Most
of that faction, IMHO, are deranged, poorly informed,
and clearly are
anti-Semitic. Some of them seemed to me at the time
that I belonged
to have serious psychological problems.
My article acknowledges their existence, since they
were very much
part of things, but puts them in perspective as only
one part of the
picture, not as "typical" in any sense. I would, as
editor of any
publication I was responsible for, be just as likely
as you to
exclude their "contributions" from my journal or
encyclopedia.
But I would not deny their existence, would not
pretend that
they were the only members of the group when that
manifestly
was not true, and would try to offer a rational
explanation
for what they were trying to accomplish and what
their
real motivations were. The SPLC and CALC, discussed
in my article, do not do this at all and were both
content to
treat the story of the Forum through a range of
Left-wing
stereotypes. From my perspective it is regrettable
that
the current Wikipedia article, while it does not go
that far,
nonetheless acts, in part, as a mouthpiece for these
same Left-wing interests.
Finally a few words about "unsourced explanations."
To make the
point yet again, much material in the article is not
documented in
any publications that I am aware of; much in it
derives directly
from my own eyewitness reporting.
As an aside, some published accounts, not all, but
some, contain
suspect statements and in a few cases reported
falsehoods. Just
because something gets into print does not
necessarily mean that
it is true, as you surely know. I understand your
point, usually
publication requirements are such that stories in
print are factual.
But hopefully you are well aware that there sometimes
are
better criteria for truth than printer's ink.
The reason for including a list of additional other
eyewitnesses, including
people Left and Right with whom I have political
disputes, was that
they could verify the factual content in my
commentary. With all
of their names deleted, along with notes about the
fact that they
could verify what I said, well, yes, much in the
article is now
"unsourced." But you don't seem to be aware that
this is the case
because you edited them out of consideration. I
included them
so that this problem would be minimized as much as
possible.
Also see my comments to Howicus about Wikipedia
double standards.
The bottom line is this question: Do you want an
article that provides
something approaching an objective account of
Pacifica Forum, granted
my subjective interests, but that nonetheless would
be essentially factual ?
The current Wikipedia article is, to use vernacular,
a mess. As a published
writer myself, I can provide a superior article than
that even if some
of what is reported would necessarily consist of
original research.
I could, however, recast various comments as NPOV
statements.
That should be easy enough to accomplish.
I will wait for your reply before deciding what to do
next.
~~~~
That was June 11; this is June 14 and
there has been no reply.
I would like to be proven wrong about my evaluation of
Wikipedia
but believe this will not happen
Too bad for me; much worse for
Wikipedia.
Billy
