Please don't leave it up to the editors here to interpret the decision by this committee. It would be helpful if the Arb Com actually spelled everything out clearly instead of leaving it up to each editor to decide where to draw the line on another editor's edits. One of the proposed decisions states:
- Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation. Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them.
So, by my interpretation, the entire Waldorf Education article with the exception of a couple of sentences which have been properly referenced, will disappear. Should I go in and remove the entire article? Is that not going to put some editors over the edge? Will I be accused of inappropriate and disruptive editing based on my interpretation of this decision?
There are also a lot of questions about the acceptability of some sources, the location (warehousing) of certain documents on controversial websites, the referencing of obscure material that is written in foreign languages, the use of actual quotations by Steiner himself and the selective harvesting of such quotations to promote a POV. None of these questions has been answered. There has been a clear finding of conflict-of-interest, and owning the articles but no action has been taken. I have to wonder what the point of collecting and presenting evidence was if not to demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee that some action should be taken. And if all we're going to get is a restatement of Wikipedia guidelines, then at least tell us exactly how they should be applied and where mistakes have been made so that we can interpret these decisions correctly. Thanks! Pete K 17:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Editors are expected to be able to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines without supervision. Much of the information in the current articles is not controversial, but that which is and is not referenced by a reliable source may be removed. Fred Bauder 20:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- The arbitrators do not make content decisions. Articles should rely on secondary sources, not primary sources like Waldorf documents or Steiner quotations. (For example, in most cases, editors should not directly quote Steiner, a primary source about himself, but should rely on articles about Steiner in newspapers, education journals, and so on.) Be careful about asking for a more concrete decision. That would most likely result in one or more editors being banned, and no one who is a party to this case should be confident he or she will be spared. Thatcher131 17:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, you say above, we should rely on articles about Steiner in newspapers, education journals and so on. Some of the sources used to make remarkable claims about Steiner have been written in German and unavailable to review by other editors. Do we have a decision about such sources? I will insist that such sources are not permissible - another editor will say they are, and we will have another edit war. We all need to know exactly what is OK and what isn't. Regarding the concrete decision - I hear what you are saying - but I think I'd rather take my chances here, where the evidence has been thoroughly presented and several arbitrators are in on the decision, than at some time in the future where a ban may occur at the discretion of a single administrator based on an edit that was made due to a misunderstanding of the decisions in this case. I believe a clear case has been made for conflict of interest of at least one editor and his exclusion from these articles will go a long way toward ensuring that things run smoothly.
Pete K
18:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Being written in German makes no difference. Fred Bauder 20:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, you say above, we should rely on articles about Steiner in newspapers, education journals and so on. Some of the sources used to make remarkable claims about Steiner have been written in German and unavailable to review by other editors. Do we have a decision about such sources? I will insist that such sources are not permissible - another editor will say they are, and we will have another edit war. We all need to know exactly what is OK and what isn't. Regarding the concrete decision - I hear what you are saying - but I think I'd rather take my chances here, where the evidence has been thoroughly presented and several arbitrators are in on the decision, than at some time in the future where a ban may occur at the discretion of a single administrator based on an edit that was made due to a misunderstanding of the decisions in this case. I believe a clear case has been made for conflict of interest of at least one editor and his exclusion from these articles will go a long way toward ensuring that things run smoothly.
Pete K
18:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- How does one verify *obscure* texts - this becomes important when the claims made that reference those texts contradict history? A lot of what we have been seeing is a presumption by editors about what the texts say. In some cases, it has been clear that they neither had the texts nor read them before citing them. The intention has apparently been to produce a POV that is otherwise unsupportable using references that other editors cannot corroborate. Pete K 20:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Unless a person has been shown to improperly translate and interpret such texts they are presumed to be adequately doing it. Lots of folks read German. Fred Bauder 16:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- I get that part Fred. The part I don't get is how we are supposed to verify an article from 1923 Germany that is referenced but not available in print anywhere - especially when that article is said to make claims that are in direct conflict with everything known or written about the subject. If nobody can read the article, nobody can make claims about what it said. This was exactly what happened when several articles were referenced and the only clue to their content was that they were in a magazine that opposed anti-Semitism. Without access to the articles themselves (i.e. nobody, including the person referencing them, was able to read them), there is no way their mere existence could support any claims about their content. I expect I'll be removing references to any text that is not verifyable. My attitude, I understand, may get me banned under the current Arb Com decision. Pete K 17:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- For the record, the text of the articles was eventually produced (at least one of them) and indeed the text did not support the claim that was being made (that Steiner was some sort of champion of the fight against anti-Semitism). The article confirmed exactly the truth - that Steiner was an assimilationist calling for the total disappearance of the Jews and their culture. Pete K 17:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Please don't leave it up to the editors here to interpret the decision by this committee. It would be helpful if the Arb Com actually spelled everything out clearly instead of leaving it up to each editor to decide where to draw the line on another editor's edits. One of the proposed decisions states:
- Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation. Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them.
So, by my interpretation, the entire Waldorf Education article with the exception of a couple of sentences which have been properly referenced, will disappear. Should I go in and remove the entire article? Is that not going to put some editors over the edge? Will I be accused of inappropriate and disruptive editing based on my interpretation of this decision?
There are also a lot of questions about the acceptability of some sources, the location (warehousing) of certain documents on controversial websites, the referencing of obscure material that is written in foreign languages, the use of actual quotations by Steiner himself and the selective harvesting of such quotations to promote a POV. None of these questions has been answered. There has been a clear finding of conflict-of-interest, and owning the articles but no action has been taken. I have to wonder what the point of collecting and presenting evidence was if not to demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee that some action should be taken. And if all we're going to get is a restatement of Wikipedia guidelines, then at least tell us exactly how they should be applied and where mistakes have been made so that we can interpret these decisions correctly. Thanks! Pete K 17:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Editors are expected to be able to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines without supervision. Much of the information in the current articles is not controversial, but that which is and is not referenced by a reliable source may be removed. Fred Bauder 20:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- The arbitrators do not make content decisions. Articles should rely on secondary sources, not primary sources like Waldorf documents or Steiner quotations. (For example, in most cases, editors should not directly quote Steiner, a primary source about himself, but should rely on articles about Steiner in newspapers, education journals, and so on.) Be careful about asking for a more concrete decision. That would most likely result in one or more editors being banned, and no one who is a party to this case should be confident he or she will be spared. Thatcher131 17:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, you say above, we should rely on articles about Steiner in newspapers, education journals and so on. Some of the sources used to make remarkable claims about Steiner have been written in German and unavailable to review by other editors. Do we have a decision about such sources? I will insist that such sources are not permissible - another editor will say they are, and we will have another edit war. We all need to know exactly what is OK and what isn't. Regarding the concrete decision - I hear what you are saying - but I think I'd rather take my chances here, where the evidence has been thoroughly presented and several arbitrators are in on the decision, than at some time in the future where a ban may occur at the discretion of a single administrator based on an edit that was made due to a misunderstanding of the decisions in this case. I believe a clear case has been made for conflict of interest of at least one editor and his exclusion from these articles will go a long way toward ensuring that things run smoothly.
Pete K
18:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Being written in German makes no difference. Fred Bauder 20:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, you say above, we should rely on articles about Steiner in newspapers, education journals and so on. Some of the sources used to make remarkable claims about Steiner have been written in German and unavailable to review by other editors. Do we have a decision about such sources? I will insist that such sources are not permissible - another editor will say they are, and we will have another edit war. We all need to know exactly what is OK and what isn't. Regarding the concrete decision - I hear what you are saying - but I think I'd rather take my chances here, where the evidence has been thoroughly presented and several arbitrators are in on the decision, than at some time in the future where a ban may occur at the discretion of a single administrator based on an edit that was made due to a misunderstanding of the decisions in this case. I believe a clear case has been made for conflict of interest of at least one editor and his exclusion from these articles will go a long way toward ensuring that things run smoothly.
Pete K
18:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- How does one verify *obscure* texts - this becomes important when the claims made that reference those texts contradict history? A lot of what we have been seeing is a presumption by editors about what the texts say. In some cases, it has been clear that they neither had the texts nor read them before citing them. The intention has apparently been to produce a POV that is otherwise unsupportable using references that other editors cannot corroborate. Pete K 20:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Unless a person has been shown to improperly translate and interpret such texts they are presumed to be adequately doing it. Lots of folks read German. Fred Bauder 16:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- I get that part Fred. The part I don't get is how we are supposed to verify an article from 1923 Germany that is referenced but not available in print anywhere - especially when that article is said to make claims that are in direct conflict with everything known or written about the subject. If nobody can read the article, nobody can make claims about what it said. This was exactly what happened when several articles were referenced and the only clue to their content was that they were in a magazine that opposed anti-Semitism. Without access to the articles themselves (i.e. nobody, including the person referencing them, was able to read them), there is no way their mere existence could support any claims about their content. I expect I'll be removing references to any text that is not verifyable. My attitude, I understand, may get me banned under the current Arb Com decision. Pete K 17:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
- For the record, the text of the articles was eventually produced (at least one of them) and indeed the text did not support the claim that was being made (that Steiner was some sort of champion of the fight against anti-Semitism). The article confirmed exactly the truth - that Steiner was an assimilationist calling for the total disappearance of the Jews and their culture. Pete K 17:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)