Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-07-19/In the news

Discuss this story

The Roderic Page biology story has spawned a discussion on refactoring the way the taxobox template works: Template talk:Taxobox#Automatic taxonomy generation. A prototype of the new system is currently being tested. Kaldari (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think anyone who reads the final discussion on the article she championed will see clearly that there were few -- if any -- "anti-Semites and Israel-haters" involved in deleting that article. Even those arguing to keep the article never felt the need to accuse those who disagreed with them of being one of these -- despite the conversation getting heated at points. I believe this says everything one needs to know about Karin McQuillan -- & not just about her judgment about Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I think she is accurate on this point: "it is not pleasant to try to contribute to topics dealing with Israel. Major topics like Jerusalem or the Holocaust attract enough attention that destructive editors’ depredations are kept at a minimum." That matches the experience of many editors who've ventured into this area. She's only wrong in thinking that all the disruptive editors are anti-Semitic or anti-Israel. Controversial topics always attract a great number of POV warriors trying to promote their own perspective, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most controversial of all; there have been, and will continue to be, plenty of disruptive and tendentious editors on both sides. ArbCom has tried to help by banning and restricting some of the worst offenders, but it's not a problem that will ever go away completely, as long as the real-world conflict exists. Robofish (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't argue with you about any of what you wrote Robofish. But claiming that Wikipedia is a nest of anti-Semiticism & Islamofascists not only shifts the blame entirely onto one set of shoulders, it insults everyone who is part of Wikipedia. The only reason she wrote this was to deny her own reprehensible behavior & inability to usefully contribute here. Instead of increasing the viciousness inherent in these disagreements, why don't these advocates for one or both sides from outside Wikipedia come here with the goal of calming things down instead? (Yes, I know the answer, but maybe one of them will see this & consider trying that tactic.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]