User:Alexia Death/My wikipedia experience
|This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.|
This article is a short essay of my first month as a registered Wikipedia editor. I am afraid in expressing this, that this little story will be turned against me, that there is some policy that will quickly condemn me for expressing my thoughts. I will write here of the side of wikipedia I've seen as a participant of currently hot topics concerning my home, Estonia. Please understand that this is not a personal attack on anyone or uncivil behavior. It carries my personal opinions.
The Bronze man moves us all
The end of April saw unrest in the capitol of my little home and seeing the lies spread in Russian media I chose to come here to see how things stood. They weren't good. So I participated a little. Googled for sources and learned the ropes of this project. Soon I discovered that many articles talking about Estonia were either skewed or plain wrong. So slowly I and other editors, some of them awakened by the same unrest, started fixing them. But then, the madness began.
The Baltic Occupation myth
Every change, every improvement was ferociously fought even tho sources were presented, "pushers of Estonian nationalist POV" they said, "pushing their insidious Baltic Occupation Myth" they said, no matter that sources were presented. We were then either sock- or meatpuppets, how is it possible otherwise for us to agree with each other so well. And when it seemed to be clear that calling us names and insisting that we act out of bad faith was not going to prevail, all louder resistors were gathered to one big checkuser case even tho for first two, me an other editor the accuser had already Googled over, found that we were distinct people and he even knew our real names... A case that at first gave a false positive due to the nature of our country's infrastructure doing immeasurable damage to all of our reputation... This was an incredible day for me. Me being a puppet master? Over accounts much older than mine? Me being a puppet even tho I used a clearly traceable name? It was insulting and it left a bad feeling in my heart. My illusion of Wikipedia in which countering arguments create better articles by discussion was shattering. No matter what proof was presented, no matter how well generally accepted fact, some editors would not relent. When asked for sources, silence. When consensus was assumed have been achieved and acted up on, an edit war...
Is calling three whole nations Nazis civil? Long discussion on the topics whether Baltic=Nazi made me nauseous. We have no more skinheads than Finland does. And even then, they are a small secluded group generally avoided by all thinking people. Calling my home eSStonia is hurtful to the core. Calling the Soviet occupation that cost my people so many lives and is an internationally established fact a myth is insulting to my national identity and to my understanding of justice. Calling Congress of Estonia a racist organization is just as painful. I feel under attack nationally, I feel I must defend myself on every step. The miserable RFCU is dragged into every debate by the opponents. It is hard to stay civil under such constant pressure. It feels like high school. There are bullies. Plenty of them. Knowing all the policies of WP, they have the knowledge to say out loud, they will go to arbCom... some day. I wish that day would be today. This persistent under siege feeling is starting to take its toll on me... I wish it would stop, that other editors would discuss content with civil and understanding, I wish Wikipedia would actually work.
What is this stalking? Is keeping an eye on an editors edits who has shown himself as maker of dubious claims and presenter of bias and POV and correcting him, stalking? I do not think so. The difference between correcting and stalking is that proverbial good faith...
I believe all people are good essentially. I believe that most if not all editors think they are supporting the truth. But part of this is letting go when proven wrong. And part of this is not screaming "bad faith" at every attempt to correct your errors. Ive been said to have acted out of "bad faith"... I never engage in anything I do not believe in. So there can be no bad faith...
Does NPOV really require you to not speak of sourced material that shows one side better? Just because the other side does not have equivalent sources? Cant we speak of the damages of Occupation just because there are no sources to void these statements? Perhaps that is so because these statements are true? I believe NPOV stands for representing the information in the sources accurately and dispassionately...
Many newcomers come here on moments of dispute. If their welcome is as warm as mine as been, it does not spell good for this project. On this day I feel that Wikipedia is bad for my mental health, but yet there is a mission to accomplice. This mission is to make sure that Wikipedia is as objective as possible about this little land I call my home.
--Alexia Death 10:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
P.S this article intentionally does not link any diffs. It is not meant as a finger pointing. It is simple venting.