User:Jossi/Response

Mr. Metz makes many assertions that are not only false, but demonstrate a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works.

• He assumes that I created the WP:BLP policy or that I created the WP:SELFPUB section of WP:V. He also asserts that I am part of a "Wikipedia's inner circle, or ruling clique". That is just nonsense.
• I have not "tweaked WP:COI to permit edits". The WP:COI has evolved considerably after my initial participation (which was a very civil debate on the issue of discipleship and COI: Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Archive3#Discipleship). I also declared my COI there during these discussions. (My contributions to that guideline were discussed thoroughly around October 2006, my last edit to the guideline was around June 2007, that was minor.)

I explained to Mr. Metz that in Wikipedia, policy is not shaped by individuals, rather, it shaped by community consensus. Proposals for policy page changes made by any editor, attracts vigorous debates in the community. There is no one single person in Wikipedia that can "shape" policy. Despite claims made by those that criticize Wikipedia (such as Mr. Metz), there is no cabal, I told him.

I am also concerned that this article may be a retaliatory action by The Register, given the opinions I voiced in response to a Request For Comments on the article Criticism of Wikipedia, related to the reliability of their website as a source for Wikipedia. See: diff and diff. A chilling effect?

The journalist was very selective in citing my responses to him, and it become very clear to me during my exchanges with him via email that by that time the author had apparently committed to writing a story and seemed to find it hard to rewrite with the additional evidence and advisement taken into account, given it fair place or with a more balanced tone.

As for other comments made in the Reg article:

• The Criticism of Prem Rawat article was not deleted by me (how could I?), but redirected and merged by a non-involved editor diff Jan 2007
• All my edits to Prem Rawat over the last years have been either minor edits, (grammar, ref format, etc.) or removal of vandalism
• I have welcome *all* reliable and verifiable sources and even created a page to provide cites from these that editors could use in the article. See Talk:Prem_Rawat/scholars.

In these articles, I have welcome all material that is sourced to reputable sources that can be used to improve them. When there where disputes about sources, I have requested the involvement of other editors via our dispute resolution process, such as request for comments, and third opinions. That is what I have done in these instances: collaborating with other editors that have an interest in the subject in the pursuit of creating an excellent article.

Those that know me know that I have made more than 58,000 edits in Wikipedia in a myriad of articles and subjects. My contributions to the Prem Rawat articles are just a small fraction of these. I have contributed numerous articles about Archeology, Book design, Textual criticism, Calligraphy, Taoism, Native American music, Digital art, and many other subjects in which I have an interest. I also assist other editors in dispute resolution, respond to inquires posted in the administrators' noticeboards and perform other janitorial duties as an admin in Wikipedia.

I am not interested in disclosing any further personal information as disaffected former students have in the past manipulated the media and harassed me and other students. I have no inclination to bring off-wiki disputes to the project, so this is all I will say publicly about these people.

Finally, I believe I have acted in full transparency. Sure, I may have had the occasional lapse in judgment, I am not perfect... I only have my contrib list as a witness, and I stand to be judged by the community in this regard. In the meantime I am taking a wikibreak to allow the community to evaluate my behavior and contributions, without the drama that results from bringing an off-wiki dispute to the project, as well as to reflect on all of this. In this context, please read my request for support and advice, posted at WP:VPA on January 15. Your comments will be appreciated in my talk page. You can also email me with questions or comments, if you wish to do so.

Happy editing and best wishes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I thank all these that took the time to comment at WP:COI/N. Most of you addressed the issue at hand in a manner that is consistent with the aims of the project and look at ways how to improve. I thank you for that. After all. Wikipedia transcends any one editor; questions should be asked, and inquiries are part of our due diligence as an all-volunteer based project.

To those few editors that commented there, with which I have had interactions in my capacity as an admin, your taking this as an opportunity at retaliation, only reflects badly on you. Rather than see me as your enemy, see me as a resource, a fellow editor that wants this project to be the best it can be. Those that despite past disputes found a way to transcend them and offer sound advise, I thank you: Comments like yours demonstrate that there is hope.

As it relates to the articles in question, if I ever edit these articles again, I understand that these will be scrutinized with a magnifying glass, and that would be a good thing, I expected nothing less before and I expect nothing less now. And even if I never edit these articles directly again, which I am seriously considering for the sake of Wikipedia and to avoid further drama, I still intend to continue to engage enthusiastically and vigorously in talk page discussions to assist in their development and to continue monitoring them against vandalism and ill intended edits.

Finally a word to Mr. Metz: Yellow journalism is not Journalism. Sensationalistic press may be good for business and may increase The Reg's bottom line in ad impressions and clickthroughs, but only helps position your publication as a good example of what online media today should not be. Your animosity against Wikipedia, its processes, its volunteers, and its founders, is way too obvious. My assessment of your bias is that it is based on fear. Fear that it is possible to have a project which is own by the tens of thousands that care for it; fear that a project like Wikipedia will succeed despite naysayers like you; fear that it is possible that people with strong and often opposing POVs can collaborate successfully and create excellent, neutral, and factual encyclopedic articles, within a simple framework of civility, the presumption of good faith, and respect; fear that NPOV is achievable and will render bias such as yours to be irrelevant and to take second stage; fear that the hope and enthusiasm of millions of individuals, can challenge despair, skepticism and a dark view of the world. Wikipedia will continue to prove you wrong. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Minimize harm.
Act independently.
Be accountable.
Society of Professional Journalists, Code of Ethics^[1]

I have followed the comments at the different boards, my talk page, and at Jimbo Wales' talk page with interest, and I believe that despite the fact that I have acted transparently and within established guidelines, it would be best for the project and for myself to publicly declare my intention to refrain from editing these articles directly for now, limiting myself to talk page discussions only. If I see any disruption or ill-intended behavior that cannot be resolved in talk by active editors, I will report these to the appropriate boards so uninvolved editors can take a look.

Having said that, I would like to express a concern that in the last few days I have been the target of personal attacks and trolling that are most unwelcome and that are derailing efforts made in talk page to keep an atmosphere of basic civility and decency. I choose not to respond to these attacks, and would expect the community to take the necessary steps so that this does not escalate any further. Neither the subject of the article, nor myself or other editors should be fair game for such behavior, regardless of circumstances.

I will continue editing Wikipedia in other areas of interest and continue assisting in my capacity as an admin as before.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)