Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/25 December 2011/Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive: Difference between revisions
m →Statement by Virago250: Reponse to request by Lord Roem to clarify what exactly I think was incorrectly edited out. (Details coming within 72 hours.) |
|||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
===Statement by Virago250=== |
===Statement by Virago250=== |
||
In Wikipedia as in life, people whose expertise is in writing and editing (as opposed to a particular subject area) can be an enormous help in improving encyclopedic articles, by applying principles of sound exposition and enforcing style standards. However, these same individuals can (inadvertently) ruin articles by "editing out" information that seems not to fit the accepted style, or seems at first glance to be 'off topic', due to their own unfamiliarity with the subject. Always, when editing any technical topic, an editor must ask: ''In making this material conform to accepted style, have I deleted or compromised valuable material or valuable cross-references?'' (For example, in an article like [[Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive]] |
In Wikipedia as in life, people whose expertise is in writing and editing (as opposed to a particular subject area) can be an enormous help in improving encyclopedic articles, by applying principles of sound exposition and enforcing style standards. However, these same individuals can (inadvertently) ruin articles by "editing out" information that seems not to fit the accepted style, or seems at first glance to be 'off topic', due to their own unfamiliarity with the subject. Always, when editing any technical topic, an editor must ask: ''In making this material conform to accepted style, have I deleted or compromised valuable material or valuable cross-references?'' (For example, in an article like [[Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive]], which deals with continuity, you simply cannot remove material on predicate functions and mathematical functions, or associated references to Lucy Dawidowicz will become incomprehensible. Modal logics is another approach which also applies.) |
||
If a Wikipedia editor feels information in an article is not relevant, they should explain why such information is irrelevant or incorrect, supporting their explanation with specific facts, citations and Wikilinks, just as anyone else would have to do, who was writing such an article. Lacking specific facts and citations, they should consult the author whose work she is about to edit, before removing or relocating material so that it conforms to accepted style -- at the expense of the article's content. |
If a Wikipedia editor feels information in an article is not relevant, they should explain why such information is irrelevant or incorrect, supporting their explanation with specific facts, citations and Wikilinks, just as anyone else would have to do, who was writing such an article. Lacking specific facts and citations, they should consult the author whose work she is about to edit, before removing or relocating material so that it conforms to accepted style -- at the expense of the article's content. |
||
Revision as of 22:23, 6 January 2012
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive |
| Status | Active |
| Request date | 08:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Virago250 (talk) |
| Mediator(s) | Lord Roem |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive
Who is involved?
The list of the users involved. For example:
What is the dispute?
Several articles have been written on a closely related topic: the censorship that applies to Shark Island Extermination Camp, Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive, and related articles such as Lucy Dawidowicz, Modal logic, Predicate logic, etc., as it applies to historiography. The problem has come up several times with other administrators: and Itsmejudith has reversed her changes.
Itsmejudith has confused 'continuity' as used by Lucy Dawidowicz in Shark Island Extermination Camp, and has tried to remove relevant materials. Itsmejudith has agreed in the past to properly label the subject matter and not confuse the subject of technical continuity as used by Lucy Dawidowicz with Itsmejudith's entirely different sense of continuity. Itsmejudith is now repeating the same removal of the same information with references to Lucy Dawidowicz as well as additional information supporting the censorship pointed out by several citations.
Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive is inherently difficult because it touches on a controversial topic (censorship of material dealing with the Third Reich), and involves technical information to support the view expressed in the article. It is clear that Itsmejudith continually tries to remove relevant information that she does not approve of by simplifying the subject. I'm all for simplification, but not at the cost of making it impossible to understand the subject matter. If the citations are not found acceptable or relevant, Itsmejudith should point out why.
What steps have you already taken to try and resolve the dispute?
User_talk:Virago250#Obfuscation of the Historical Record Due to Conflation and Deletion of Material User_talk:Virago250#Good faith
What issues needs to be addressed to help resolve the dispute
I think Itsmejudith does not like the fact that the materials used in the article are complicated, with Wikilinks to several subjects used to support the article. There is indeed no way to simplify the article, so Itsmejudith simplifies the article to the point where it has no meaning and is indeed in violation of the citations used, which she thus ignores.
What can we do to help resolve this issue?
Is it possible for you to ask another editor not to agree with me publicly and then go behind my back to do the very thing she just agreed not to do? Whenever I open this article and see that Itsmejudith has made changes that are the precise ones I requested she not make without consultation or justification, I feel that she is writing about something she doesn't really understand; that she is only interested in the format of the article. I'm amenable to format changes (spelling, grammar, etc.), but not wholesale, vast changes of the ideas and facts involved.
Do you realise that mediation requires an open mind, collaborating together in an environment of camaraderie and mutual respect, with the understanding that to reach a solution, compromise is required?
Absolutely.
Mediator notes
I have asked both parties to confirm their interest in mediation on their respective talk pages. -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Administrative notes
Discussion
Ground rules
- Please keep all comments focused on the mediation. Proper editing decorum must be maintained, and as such, incivility and personal attacks must not occur, and I (Lord Roem) reserve the ability to archive, refactor or remove comments of such nature.
- Try to keep an open mind in the case, and realise that sometimes, you need to give a little to get a little. Mediation is not possible without compromise as well as keeping an open mind.
- When there are multiple issues that need to be addressed in a dispute (such as this one) only one particular issue or dispute is to be discussed at a time. Discussion that veers off course of the current topic may be archived at my discretion.
- MedCab is not a formal part of the dispute resolution process, and cannot provide binding sanctions. Nevertheless, I ask that both involved agree to abide by the outcome of this case.
- You will watchlist this page so as to keep track of all conversations and discussions.
Please sign just your username below, with four tildes (~~~~) to indicate your agreement with the ground rules and your participation in the case.
)
Agreement by participants to abide by ground rules
- Itsmejudith (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- Virago250 (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
After signing agreement, please post a <250 word statement below indicating (1) what are the key issues you feel are in this dispute and (2) how do you want these issues resolved?
Statement by Virago250
In Wikipedia as in life, people whose expertise is in writing and editing (as opposed to a particular subject area) can be an enormous help in improving encyclopedic articles, by applying principles of sound exposition and enforcing style standards. However, these same individuals can (inadvertently) ruin articles by "editing out" information that seems not to fit the accepted style, or seems at first glance to be 'off topic', due to their own unfamiliarity with the subject. Always, when editing any technical topic, an editor must ask: In making this material conform to accepted style, have I deleted or compromised valuable material or valuable cross-references? (For example, in an article like Research Materials: Max Planck Society Archive, which deals with continuity, you simply cannot remove material on predicate functions and mathematical functions, or associated references to Lucy Dawidowicz will become incomprehensible. Modal logics is another approach which also applies.)
If a Wikipedia editor feels information in an article is not relevant, they should explain why such information is irrelevant or incorrect, supporting their explanation with specific facts, citations and Wikilinks, just as anyone else would have to do, who was writing such an article. Lacking specific facts and citations, they should consult the author whose work she is about to edit, before removing or relocating material so that it conforms to accepted style -- at the expense of the article's content.
- Virago250, your statement is a bit unclear. Can you clarify what exactly you think was incorrectly edited out? Lord Roem (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Statement by Itsmejudith
I really appreciate Virago's contributions, but s/he is still getting used to Wikipedia policies and usages. Anything I removed was in the spirit of the bold-discuss-revert cycle. Nothing is ever gone for good. I can always be convinced by argument, but we also have to remember that we work with consensus, and edits have to be justified in the eyes of all sorts of editors, expert and non-expert. As I have said, everything that is verifiable from good sources, and is notable, can go in somewhere. Virago has drawn our attention to a number of excellent sources. They really need to be used to good effect.
The nub of the misunderstanding seems to be about what theory we need to describe in order to explain that access is restricted to some archives containing information about Nazi science. Lucy Davidowicz is the theorist Virago finds particularly pertinent, and that may be right, but we need a reliable source that tells us that Davidowicz is relevant. We can't just assume it. And the connection with forms of logic, again we would need a source that makes the connection. Otherwise, we would be doing original research.
I would also remind Virago that Wikipedia is not the place for "righting great wrongs". The content discussed here is includes some really great wrongs, evils, but still it is important to remember that Wikipedia editors have to follow behind the historians that are uncovering those evils. We can't lead the way. Also, it is worth thinking all the time of readers, who come from a range of different backgrounds. What, for example, about a young student from southern Africa, who needs to study the history of colonialism in his/her own region, but only has a vague idea about European history? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)