Wikipedia NK-blog Deletions
by Richardson ~ April 12th, 2008. Filed under: Blogs & Blogging.A few days ago I noticed that DPRK Studies had been removed from the Weblogs section of the Wikipedia page on North Korea, so I added it back.
Wikipedia user Mthibault decided it was an, “inappropriate external link” and it was, “considered spamming,” and deleted DPRK Studies from that list of blogs.
I added it back, and asked him to explain why one blog was removed and how could a North Korea blog under “Weblogs” and “External Links” could be inappropriate, since nothing was inserted into the main article. Rather than answering this, Mthibault deleted that entire section of blogs in the North Korea article.
Others have noticed how these “deletion wars” have reduced the usefulness of Wikipedia in two ways; the obvious deletion or relevant information, and by disaffecting regular and new contributors.
From the article linked to by the above post referenced:
As the deletions and ill-will spread in 2007—deletions not just of webcomics but of companies, urban places, Web sites, lists, people, categories, and ideas—all deemed to be trivial, “NN” (nonnotable), “stubby,” undersourced, or otherwise unencyclopedic—Andrew Lih, one of the most thoughtful observers of Wikipedia’s history, told a Canadian reporter: “The preference now is for excising, deleting, restricting information rather than letting it sit there and grow.” In September 2007, Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia’s panjandrum—himself an inclusionist who believes that if people want an article about every Pokemon character, then hey, let it happen—posted a one-sentence stub about Mzoli’s, a restaurant on the outskirts of Cape Town, South Africa. It was quickly put up for deletion. Others saved it, and after a thunderstorm of vandalism (e.g., the page was replaced with “I hate Wikipedia, its a far-left propaganda instrument, some far-left gangs control it”), Mzoli’s is now a model piece, spiky with press citations. There’s even, as of January, an article about “Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia“—it too survived an early attempt to purge it.
April 12th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
That sucks hard. This site is no where near spam. What a$$holes.
April 12th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
As an experienced (German) wikipedian I have to tell you that this is NOT a viable method in Wikipedia. You are just trying to waghe this edit war, and the final result will be that the site will be blocked to all edits.
If somebody makes deletions you disapprove, you can appeal to the administrators and force a discussion on the discussion page. If Mthibault is alone and does not receive support by others, he won’t be able to keep up his position. If you are voted down, you have to accept - that’s the way Wikipedia works.
April 12th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Listener;
Thank you for the support.
Fabian;
I’ve taken your advice and am putting this topic on the discussion page to get wider attention.
April 12th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Count me in.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
I do not have an account on wiki, and even don’t have any idea on how it works. I just know that this blog is one of best resources about NK online, and all I’ll do what I can do to help you: let know to the few people that in italy that are reading my blog (hoping they’re wikipedians) this post, your great work and the importance of it, and ask for their help.
best wishes, go on.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
This is one of the reasons why I decided not to list my blog on there because Wiki is very political and despite the veneer neutrality, I do not see it as such.
That is also another reason why I avoid linking to Wiki as much as possible.
April 13th, 2008 at 6:37 am
Hi, I’m User:Mthibault
I won’t respond to sarcastic comments of any kind, but please try to consider that I may not be on a powertrip but just trying to enforce Wikipedia policies (in this case the one on external links).
I’m quite interested in NK, I have been there recently, and your blog is certainly very interesting. However, Wikipedia policies cleary states that WP is not a directory, and that links to blogs (of any kind) should be avoided. The existence of a “weblogs” section is thus by essence not acceptable.
I’ve asked for third party review per WP process on disputes, I will of course abide by concensus.
Why don’t we work together to improve the article (which clearly need a lot of attention)?
April 13th, 2008 at 7:56 am
You are clearly mistaken, the External Links policy does in fact NOT state that;
I don’t think anyone could argue (effectively) that the blogs listed are not entirely relevant to the topic of North Korea (under what should be linked).
Even if one considers the blogs not to be “reliable sources,” they are definitely from “knowledgeable sources,” at least for this topic (under links to be considered). Finally, there is NO prohibition on linking to blogs in the External Links policy, unless you ignore the word “normally” in the heading for that section of the policy - that is an incorrect interpretation of the policy.
The key here concerns, “those written by… recognized authorit[ies].” One could argue that the general public doesn’t know who, say, Joshua Stanton or Richardson is, but most of the public won’t know where Pyongyang or Wonson is either. However these blogs are recognized authorities on North Korea within the Korea-blogosphere.
April 13th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Thibault, I hesitate to say this for how it’s going to sound, but I’ve testified before the House International Relations Committee, met with a number of Ambassadors, House and Senate staffers, and ne U.S. Senator on multiple occasions to talk Korea policy. The world’s foremost experts on North Korea have given interviews on OneFreeKorea. OFK is read daily by journalists by some of the largest-circulation media publications on earth. I’ve made two appearances on a BBC radio program. On several occasions, my Wikipedia links add first-hand evidence about North Korea’s military capabilities and its concentration camps.
Richardson is probably more modest than I am, which prevents him from stating such things, but the same journalists and academics who read my blog regularly read his.
My point here is not to embellish my credentials. My point is that all of that information is readily ascertainable to anyone who would bother to take even a cursory look at my blog. Since you obviously did not bother to do this before deleting the link to One Free Korea, I question the basis for your deletion, and the reasons why you reached a conclusion before minimally investigating the facts.
By the way, please elucidate us all on your qualifications to decide who is an authority on Korea and who is not. I googled for anything you’ve written or published on the subject and found nothing at all.
April 13th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Joshua,
Thank you for the input. I have updated my About page with as much as I am willing to publicly say about my own credentials, a limit which may hurt me in this.
April 13th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Let me add what I don’t think you will mind me adding — DPRK Studies is read daily by journalists for major wire services and some of the world’s most respected newspapers (they prefer to remain anonymous, and we will respect that preference). Its regular commenters include the much-respected and wide-read Korea experts Andrei Lankov and Bruce Klingner of the Heritage Foundation.
Even persons who disagree with the perspective of DPRK Studies can’t afford to ignore adverse comment here, which explains why David Albright and Tim Beal, both often quoted in the press, have left substantive comments debating points raised here.
There is scarcely a Korea blog in existence that does not link to DPRK Studies. Among Washington’s Korea-watchers in government, academia, and the media, DPRK Studies is on almost every short list of must-reads. My site meter frequently shows hits coming to my site from the intelligence community, congressional staffers, and the State Department via DPRK Studies.
Again, this tends to reflect mostly on the conclusory and unresearched assumptions of Mr. Thibault. I repeat my call for Mr. Thibault to present us with his qualifications, or to simply and honestly concede that his unfamiliarity with OFK and DPRKS is an extension of his unfamiliarity with Korea issues in general.
April 13th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
One remark: Wikipedia rules are just guidelines, not laws. Exceptions can always be made for good reasons.
And some of the reasons here seem to be quite good
April 13th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Hi again everyone.
First of all I never implied and certainly will not present myself as an expert on Korea, and I do believe those of you who claim to be experts on the subject.
My contributions to WP are mostly vandalism/spam patrolling and as such I think I have some experience with the relevant policies.
I do not engage in revert wars, as you may have seen I’ve immedialtely asked for a third opinion on the links when my jugment was questionned.
I do think that a great number of links on the NK article at WP should be removed (please see WP:NOT : Wikipedia is not a collection of links). A traditional article has between 1-5 external links.
This DOES NOT however mean that this blog, or any other shouldn’t be used as a source to justify something in the article. I’m NOT questioning the accuracy of this blog, neither am I endorsing it.
At WP, any claim in an article should always be sourced, when a source is given, WP editors are able to discuss its reliability and neutrality. In that respect I encourage anyone to contribute to the NK article at WP using this blog as source as long as it respects WP relevant policies (NPOV, Verifiability, Noticability…).
A “source” at WP is listed in “Notes and References” with the appropriate link in the article text. An “External link” is not the same thing.
On a side note, if you’re interested I have about 400 pictures of my trip to NK in march (Pyongyang, DMZ… the usual) that I’m willing to GPL. I’m also looking for those (US visitors) who were on the south side of the DMZ around 12pm and might have taken pictures of me (I sure have pictures of them)
April 13th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Since the links were removed/restored a few times prior to me inserting the question in the talk page, it does seem that you didn’t “immediately” ask for a third part opinion. I did soon after I noticed my change had been removed, still have not received a response from that person (see my contribs, if interested).
Hopefully what will be highlighted for some users/editors of Wikipedia is that at least specialized blogs in External Links are both useful and appropriate, and secondly a focus on content rather than authority.
FYI: Note that in blogs “WP” will generally be understood as “WordPress” rather than “WikiPedia.”
April 13th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Please see my contributions, you’ll see I certainly didn’t try to force the deletion of your link (your contributions if you don’t mind me saying are limited to inserting links to your blog).
Given your knowledge of North Korea, can you help tidy the article itself?
(sorry for the WP thing, as you may have noticed my english skills are limited, I’m not a native speaker).
April 13th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Please stay within the facts. You deleted it more than once, then the entire section of links. Your comment regarding my contributions is also inaccurate. First, my initial contribs were to change refs to an older group blog to those they divided into. Second, my contribs were not, as you incorrectly note, limited to that.
Deleting external links obviously relevant to the North Korea article, including one to my blog, based on a rigid (and likely incorrect) reading of a policy, does little to incline me to contribute to Wikipedia. I may contrib to the North Korea article as I have time, but this incident does discourage it, for myself, and others I’m sure. The goal of providing something not sanitized beyond usefulness seems to have become an Achilles Heal for Wikipedia.
April 13th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Hi again.
No I did not “delete it more than once then the entire section” :
- I deleted your blog once (while patrolling) and issued you a standard spam warning
When you reverted my edit I read your comment where you suggested I removed the whole section. A comment on which I totally agreed.
- I then removed the entire section
Please check my contributions (and yours) for confirmation.
April 13th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I did not suggest you remove the entire section; I challenged you to explain why you arbitrarily deleted DPRK Studies while leaving other blogs; you have still not answered this. I am sensing a strong pattern of my comments being twisted and taken out of context. As with the clear misinterpretation of the EL policy, the odds of this being unintentional diminish.
April 13th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
I am truly sorry that I deleted your link and not the whole section first. The good thing that came out of this is that we now have a debate that will reach concensus on what links to keep.
I do hope we can work past this.
April 13th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Do you think a link to any blog would be appropriate on the online version of Britannica? If you sincerely do, I would be more than happy to say I was wrong.
April 13th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
The latter argument is a quiet weak one IMHO.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia in permanent change. If dprkstudies.org would lose its value as a general information source about NK, it could be removed anytime.
The Encyclopedia Britannica however is published in editions which cannot be changed.
Thus a link published in Britannica has to be water-proof. This is not requirement for a link in Wikipedia.
April 13th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
That’s why I said “the online version”.
April 13th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
In fact it would be great if Britannica (online) included such links.
April 13th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
I’m just wondering if I am misinterpreting this argument… are people actually arguing with someone who claims to have given money to the North Korean regime and basically brags about it…? Next up we’ll be arguing about those murderous thugs on the Pueblo who were deep within NK waters and the valiant NK patrol that murdered the imperialist branch-cutting dogs at Panmunjom. Of course, we’ll have to get some citations from Pyongyang to satisfy MT, but we can manage it perhaps for a pittance.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:22 am
I certainly do not in any way support the regime. Visiting NK is still I think necessary to get a clearer picture of the situation. One may argue it provides hard currency to the government, while another might say it shows the north Koreans that westerners are not what they’ve have been told they are and contributes to change in the country.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:52 am
To jump in here on something different — in one of my college classes this semester in the MA-Teaching program I’m in, the course being on Technology in the Classroom, one assignment we had was to either post something on Wikipedia or help develop a page.
I am behind in everything in my courses, because I am teaching full time in high school for the first time in the US. So, I didn’t get a chance to work with the group I was in that was to do the Wiki assignment.
Eventually, I asked the prof if I could just pick something on my own to edit since I was behind and hadn’t coordinated with the group.
To pull this story to a shorter end, I happened to stumble across a Wikipedia post on the Chosun Ilbo while I was trying to find the Chosun’s editorial page.
I ended up editing it.
And it got me to thinking —-
those of us in the expat Korea-blosphere (who have the time) ought to sign up at Wikipedia and regularly check out the Korea-related posts.
We would be doing Wikipedia and its readers a useful service.
We all know how politically charged Korean society can be - and even the Kyopo society in the US.
We could add an informed outside voice.
Most of us are strong in our opinions on issues related to Korea (North and South), so we’d have to watch for opinions bleeding too much into our edits…
….but I still think we’d make the pages better, because we are non-Koreans familiar with the issues —- many of us having either earned higher degrees related to Korea or having lived and worked there for significant periods of time and/or done a significant amount of reading/research on Korea.
The main contribution I made to the Chosun Daily page, I think, was in the Criticism section where I tried to let a casual reader know that claims and counter-claims about right-or-left bias in Korea’s news industry are highly common in Korean society - and by putting in an example of one of the “NGO”s that has attacked the Chosun Ilbo group before.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:30 am
You have my unqualified support.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:56 am
He does have a point; the article needs n editing.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
I am not an expert on the nuts and bolts of Wikipedia, but I refer to it almost daily. I do not recall exactly how I “discovered” The Korea Liberator and, by extension, DPRK Studies and One Free Korea. If, for example, it was through links included in a Wikipedia article, then that is all the more reason to include “blog links.”
Unless — not to mention if — the DPRK opens up to the world, IMHO links to blogs such as DPRK Studies and One Free Korea are essential to enhancing a reader’s understanding of DPRK-related subjects. My modest knowledge of the DPRK — and South Korea — has been greatly enriched by reading Joshua’s and Richardson’s blogs.
usinkorea: Thank you for revising the Criticism section of the Wikipedia page for the Chosun Daily. Long overdue.
Mr. Thibault: I understand that this may not exactly be relevant to this discussion, but have you been to South Korea? Just curious.
April 14th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I do think the NK article needs expert attention, I’m sure many of you could help improving it.
M. Tukhachevsky: Well if you don’t count going around the table at Panmunjom as going in south Korea no I haven’t been there. I want to though
April 14th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
“Well if you don’t count going around the table at Panmunjom as going in south Korea no I haven’t been there. I want to though”
M. Thibault: I forgot about the table at Panmunjom. I had in mind south of Panmunjeom. I highly recommend it.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Just something to throw out there. Why bother editing the entry when little things are under dispute? The talk page alone is a nightmare and that alone made me realize just how much it should suck to contribute there.
And yes, I am a very harsh critic of Wiki.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Don’t underestimate the power of Wikipedia, Jack. After all it has created a gigantic encyclopedia.
Discussions are necessary because all texts are in constant review.
In most cases large edits will be appreciated as long as they contribute something. The discussions are less frequent than one might think, and they rarely concern major edits as a whole. Mostly details are disputed afterwards.
April 14th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
It still will not change my opinion of it. I am glad it has done what it has and I am not disputing it. In fact, it is one of the most trafficked sites out there. Those that do contribute are free to do so, and it warms my heart they do. However, I cannot help but to think Wiki must be a nightmare to police and contribute to. If it is not, then I am mistaken. I do not think I am too far off the mark though.
In all, I avoid Wiki, avoid referring to Wiki and know of others who feel the same way.
This dispute only cements it.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Admiral,
Some tourists do have legitimate reasons for going and bring back new information, or clarifies what is thought to be known. The Vice Guide, though a bit crass for my taste, falls within this first category. As for the rest, I think it would be hard to find Western travelers to North Korea ignorant of the human rights abuses, though same may be ignorant of the actual magnitude (e.g., current day concentration camps).
Still others delude themselves into thinking that their presence will somehow show North Koreans what the real world is like, never mind that the vast majority of North Koreans have no frame of reference to evaluate what little they may learn of or from foreigners, or that their handlers are trusted cadre. See a good discussion on this topic here.
I’ve always wanted to go myself, but knowing things like, for example, that at least some of the food fed to tourists is produced in the gulags, prevents me from doing so, at least as a tourist.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Jun,
All of this is in reference to the External Links section and whether or not North Korea focused blog belong. I won’t be able to look at the main article until this issue is resolved.
Tukhachevsky,
Thank you for the kind comments. I hope that the Wikipedia North Korea article will not be lessened by the exclusion of obviously relevant blogs in the External links section.
Jack & Fabian,
While I find Wikipedia useful on many occasions, the amazing level of shenanigans I am encountering with the very minor inclusion of my blog in External Links is quite discouraging. I simply don’t have the time to argue with people who ignore the very policies they cite and repeat myself endlessly there. The article blockquote in the main post above has a point concerning this.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Richardson, I apologize for going off topic. As for the nominations for the blogs listed, it is a very good list because as Joshua pointed out, they are linked on almost every K-blog out there. I refer to Yours, Joshua’s and Melvin’s all the time. Melvin’s Google Earth resource is probably the best I have ever seen.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Jack,
Nothing to apologize for.
Yours is one I’d prefer to list in EL since it provides insightful, interesting, and consistently solid posts on North Korea. I’d also like to include North Korea Monitor. The issue in both cases is the lack of information for the creds-nazis pursuing the undefined “authority” over actual content, though I completely understand the pref for privacy.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
An update; the editor who deleted all blogs from the external links section of the article has had to concede that blogs are indeed allowed by Wikipedia policy. He now expresses doubt about my credentials as a North Korea specialist as his reason for excluding this blog from the External Links section of that article.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Richardson, then this person has not heard what Walter Mondale told Marcus Noland. The truth is, nobody is an expert on North Korea, and nobody knows what exactly goes on there. Sure we can speculate and have an educated guess based on research, seeing the country itself (which is not always what it seems) and third hand accounts.
From my experience, very few can even be called authoritative. I can only call authoritative sources a keen North Korea watcher. Therefore, to question credentials is moot and a waste of time, because if you ask people that are widely known as experts WILL tell you they are not experts at all.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:03 am
As for the inclusion of my blog, I appreciate the idea of being on your short list which is one of the best honors I can think of. However, I do not have the credentials to be included on the list because you, Melvin and Joshua’s blogs are the ones I refer to first before attempting to make any post. Furthermore, I make it very, very clear on many posts I am not clear on things that may considered widely known by most watchers. I have only been studying this for about going on two years and never stepped foot in Asia, talked to defectors or been to school specializing in history/government let alone North Korea in general.
I can say on the other hand had and do continue to have wonderful contact with many folks with wide knowledge and help me better understand. The political ideologies range from the very conservative to the liberal. I respect all views (even when I disagree) and appreciate all that do provide information and resources.
April 16th, 2008 at 4:25 am
Jack, re: experts. IMO, there are a handful of people that can be called “experts” on North Korea (at least two of them are Russian and one of those has recently commented here), and your observation is exactly why I use the more accurate term “specialists” instead.
April 16th, 2008 at 6:19 am
Please Richardson don’t twist my words. Wikpedia policy does state that blogs should normaly be avoided. What I said is that, as for any rule, exceptions can be made under specific circumstances. But blogs are not generally allowed in Wikipedia. You still have to provide justification for why the article on North Korea is so different that blogs in its EL contribute to the encyclopedic content.
What I think is not important, I’m in this case your contradictor, you probably won’t convince me. You have to convince other uninvolved editors so that concensus can be build.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Matthieu Thibault: I can think of several reasons. Almost every other country is well-known and has some form of transparency; North Korea is not one of them, and 99% of information even from reputable news sources are speculative. Furthermore, the “official” DPRK site is run by a man named Alejandro living in Spain. He spouts the official line which is propagandist. North Korea is one gigantic irony.
Since even reputable news sources are speculative, blogs are speculative as well a lot of the time (with opinion thrown in sometimes), and as I said before are based on the research, third hand accounts (defectors, unnamed sources, etc.) and most un-named sources do not wan to be named because of the nature of the regime. Yes, I have talked to a person that worked in the countryside and did not want his/her name published.
It is my strong belief because North Korea is so opaque that it becomes an exception to the rule. The sticking point is who is authoritative which is subjective, and as you said in your reply you are the contradictor and nobody will be able to change your mind. That is fair enough. Therefore, I am glad somebody else stepped in to give a third opinion.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Hi Jack. I tend to agree with your reasoning about the fact that North Korea may be an exception due to the opaque nature of the regime.
The country with the most EL I found is the USA (still much less depite some obvious spams than what the NK article had).
I’m willing to concede that one well respected, authoritative and mostly neutral blog could help the NK article because of the lack of a trustworthy local web ecosphere in NK, but certainly not 4 or more as Richardson proposed.
Please understand that this is my opinion and that it still needs to get consensus.
Regarding the “official” website, I almost removed it since north Korea now has http://www.naenara.kp. I’m unsure if the spanish guy is still authoritative (from a government viewpoint) or if this website has turned into a personnal “fan” website that would be prohibited by Wikipedia policy.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I do understand it is your opinion, and that is the problem with Wiki and the reason why I avoid it. It is too subjective and leads to problems.
I bid you a good day.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
For those interested, the photos of my trip (they are in relatively high resolution, good luck if you don’t have high bandwidth) are at http://dprk.ewak.com/ (if you happen to be on the background of http://dprk.ewak.com/CIMG0380.JPG let me know !)
April 16th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Thibault
What you said before;
What you say above;
The policy never said the former, which was purely your interpretation – your opinion. You have, however, changed your position, as quote one and two mean two different things.
I’m well aware of what the External Links policy says on what should/should not be included;
And on authority you now say;
I’m not sure who is going to take you seriously if you write things like that.
There is absolutely nothing in the policy to support what you suggest. To me it’s very clear you’ve gone past the point of reason in your personal quest to prohibit blogs. You might want to check the blockquote in the main post at the top of this page to see what effect this has on Wikipedia in the long run. You can bet this exchange is only reinforcing that sentiment.
I’ve known that all along.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I think we can agree on the fact that we interpret the policy differently.
This is however interesting since the now infamous “except those written by a recognized authority.” is being debated at Wikipedia_Talk:EL to determine what “recognized authority is”.
This might seem frivolous, but please understand that a lot is at stake here : if inclusion of a blog (even if it’s a high quality one) is considered acceptable then anyone will be able to insert links to “good” blogs inside articles. I’m pretty sure there are lots of good blogs about everything around the internet, and this would create endless lists of blogs in articles, which then would be against Wikipedia’s policy on limiting the number of external links.
The Open Directory project is I think a good alternative, it’s such a good alternative that it is suggested in the policy. Would you be satisfied if the links where to be added to the Open Directory project and a link to the appropriate section of the ODP be placed inside the NK article?
I’m not on a personal quest to prohibit blogs, I’m trying to contribute to Wikipedia, and to abide by its policy. Sometimes policies are not clear, or are interpreted differently, that’s why there is a comprehensive mediation system. I’ve done my best to get as many uninvolved editors as possible to comment on the dispute, none have for the moment suggested to reinstate the links. The mediation is not over though and I hope we can find a solution that will suit everyone.
P.S. : My first name is Matthieu, not Thibault
April 16th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
… and some guy whose credentials consist of one regime-guided tour has deputized himself as Wikipedia’s Neutrality Genderme.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I’m certainly not a gendarme, but I think I’m entitled to having a opinion.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
My already cynical opinion of Wikipedia has dropped another notch.
April 16th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Right. You and everyone who doesn’t have the misfortune of living in North Korea is entitled to an opinion, only you’ve granted yourself plenary powers to decide what’s respectable, authoritative, and mostly neutral … which, apparently, you have adjudged KCNA and the “Korean Friendship Association” to be.
We’re not questioning your right to have an ill-informed and unfounded opinion. We’re questioning your qualification to make decisions about Wikipedia’s content, and what investigation of the facts you performed before reaching your judgments about my blog or this one.
Instead of another link back to your own photos, why not respond to my questions?
April 16th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I almost deleted that link for being off topic, but figured I’d be considered petty and that the irony would be completely lost on The Decider.
April 16th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
After reading these exchanges a term fitting is found:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikinazi
-W
April 16th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Joshua :
I’ve granted myself nothing, all my edits are reversable by anyone.
I’m not here either to say what is respectable, authoritative or neutral. I can however give my opinion about it as every other Wikipedian can. I happen to be somewhat conservative myself, but Wikipedia has a strict NPOV policy.
The inclusion of links to “official” north Korean government websites is appropriate because they are the subject of the article (but as I said before, if you think some of the remaining links are not appropriate, remove them).
I don’t brag about what I do or what I’m supposed to be an expert about, but did it cross your mind that one doesn’t go to NK as they go to Ibiza or Morroco? I might have some (yet I suppose very limited compared to yours) knowlege of Korea in general.
I hope I answered your questions. If you don’t mind me asking one, why is it so important for your blog to be linked at Wikipedia, when you could instead contribute content and source it with your blog (provided the source meets the Verifiability policy)?
Richardson : I made a mistake linking those pictures, I thought it would ease the discussion but it did the exact opposite, I deeply regret that. Can you remove the comment?
General comment : Of course I went on a guided tour since nothing else is available. To try to get past the facade and to maybe understand a bit more how the country still exists we went on an independant tour, with french speaking “guides” (who I think, from what I had seen before, happen to be more open to debate than the english speaking ones). I confronted them about concentration camps, about the lack of food, about the police state around them. I got answers, probably not the ones I would have wanted but still there was a debate.
The initial reason I came to this blog and commented was to be able to have a casual discussion, out of the boundaries of Wikipedia. I probably should have stayed there, my bad for seeking a more direct approach.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
I’m afraid you still don’t get it. You rolled it and misapplied a policy, which you still won’t admit (though you now apply the wording mostly correctly) then changed tactics to question authority (and suggesting ridiculous standards) on the topic of North Korea when it became clear that blogs are not prohibited. I believe I speak for Joshua when I say that we both believe our blogs contribute to the understanding of North Korea and therefore enhance the Wikipedia North Korea article, via External Links. If I were a reader wanting to learn about North Korea, something beyond the sanitized version presented would be a welcomed find. Our indirect contribution, of sorts.
Probably not unlike some part of the reason you posted a link to your North Korea travel photos here, not recognizing the irony of you banning our links where you’re an admin, while promoting your own at the site of the person whose link you deleted, even though your photos are clearly off topic for this thread.
From what I’ve read, many tourists to North Korea rationalize what they did after they learn a little more about the place the visited. Information like, for example, the fact that concentration camp victims grew and processed some of the food for the tourists, but likely will end up dying from complications related to malnutrition. Hmm, more irony.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:09 am
Take it easy, guys!
Even if you don’t realize it, this discussion has become pretty much a Wikipedia discussion - all the nitpicking about every sentence of the opponent…
The Wikipedia rules are guidelines, not laws. And mistakes are made sometimes - I don’t think Matthieu expected this when he removed the link.
I think the discussion should be put to rest.
If you would use all the energy you invested in this discussion into NK-related articles on Wikipedia, it would result into major improvements
April 17th, 2008 at 5:05 am
god… you sound like my mother, Fabian…..
I think a good knock-down drag out fight is great sometimes. Really hashing things out, you know. There’s ebb and flow… seeing who constructs their arguments best… seeing how well reason is maintained over ego…
I think this is important because, although, Wikipedia is not considered authoritative, it is extremely pervasive and people believe what they read on there. Arm-chair social-engineers would salivate at the power to decide what is truth and what is not with their editorial powers. It is trying to clean up its image and credibility.
And Matthieu…. I’d like to take this opportunity to accuse you of bias. You did switch your reasoning. And your choice of words, issues, and account of your experiences on your NK trip seem subtly contrived. It just seems like you’re trying to feign objectivity. I can only imagine what you’re telling and not telling your co-editors about this.
Please understand, Matthieu, that this is just my opinion and we can certainly agree to disagree on our interpretations, as we are absolutely entitled to.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:52 am
Haha - that was not my intention
Well, the discussion started out with the deletion of a link to dprkstudies.org in Wikipedia, and I think all important things are said by now.
The whole style and size (> 50 comments) of the discussion reminded me of some of the discussion I had on Wikipedia, and I can tell that most of them were totally fruitless.
I think the whole debate is focused on the wrong things. Links may be a great addition to every Wikipedia article (after all it’s only the selection which is disputed), but people don’t come to Wikipedia for links. They come for the article itself, and as we have a couple of experts here, I would find it much more productive if the discussion would target wrong facts in the Wikipedia article instead of the selection of links.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
This guy is clearly unable to admit that he’s bitten off far more than he can chew. No matter what you tell him, he’ll come back with yet another non sequitur.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
“WikiNazi” has a nice ring to it, but as a general rule, I don’t care for Reductio Ad Hitlerum. There is already a perfectly adequate term to describe the likes of Messr. Thibault:
BUREAUCRAT.
Bureaucrats use selective and arcane enforcement of regulations and absurd adherence to legalism to push their hidden (or not-so-hidden) agenda and expand their petty powers all the while pretending to be “neutral” or “just doing their jobs.”
It’s no surprise, not-so coincidentally, that much of the Nazi evil was perpetrated by the petty Beamte “just doing their jobs.”
In the interest of fairness, I concede to Messr. Thibault one point — on “recognized authority.” As far as I can tell, the vast majority of Korea-related blogs, let alone those that deal specifically with North Korea, is written by enthusiasts rather than experts.
Experts, those who speak and read the language fluently, have resided and studied the country in question at length, have done original research and/or are high-level policy practitioners in the field, are generally unlikely to be spending their precious time writing blogs. And that’s if they knew how to write and run one, in the first place.
This situation is particularly acute with Korea, which, until very recently and perhaps even now, has been and is the red-headed stepchild of the Asian studies world. Although there is enough of a a potential expert pool of former military/diplomatic personnel, expatriate Hagwon English teachers and Korean Americans, the interest sufficient enough to generate a good pool of real experts has not been there.
Which is where blogs and dynamic, online encyclopedia like Wiki come in.
Enthusiast blogs on Korea have provided a valuable service to bridge the deficiency that exists in the Western academic coverage of the country. Are they often shallow, sensationalistic, amateurish and so on? Yes, of course. Most “K-Bloggers” probably can’t even read Korean newspapers.
But in a field where genuine Western experts are only a handful (even including those whose native language is not English), that’s better than the emptiness that would exist otherwise. For that matter, these enthusiasts tend to be eminently more practical and serve to balance often left-tilting academics who dominate the “legacy media.”
Wiki is not exactly a compilation of experts, for that matter. It is a labor of love built by similar enthusiasts. I admit to being a fan of Wikipedia, despite being a confirmed and card-carrying member of the American conservative movement. I am a fan even though I often find Wiki entries to be laughably written and frequently inaccurate. I still like Wiki precisely because it provides somethings Encyclopedia Britannica does not such as spontaneity, ready access, dynamic “evolution” of cutting edge cultural phenomenon (try researching the Ultimate Fighting Championship on EB).
Which is why Wiki should be, if not promoting, certainly highlighting blogs like this one under its North Korea entry.
Wiki is NEVER going to be Encyclopedia Britannica — that’s like Anna Marie Cox (former Wonkette) pretending to compete with William Safire just because she now has a job with Time. In fact, I think it’s foolish.
Alas, human nature being what it is, when something new, dynamic and grassroots becomes successful, it begins to get an inflated sense of self-importance and loses all sight of what made it different and successful in the first place. It becomes something like DailyKos.
I hoped that would not happen to Wiki, but this little episode tells me otherwise.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Joshua: It would be cool to see a Marcus Noland/Stephen Haggard blog…
April 17th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Kevin,
You’re absolutely correct about MT – “trying to feign objectivity.” I guess it’s sort of like the emperor’s new clothes, though. We all see it, he’s oblivious.
Fabian,
I think you’re correct that this exchange with MT has accomplished just about nothing, but I have to disagree about the external links. I often go to Wiki articles and look to those links for additional links as sources.
Jun,
That’s what he’d come back with if he was coming back, but I think he’s given up here.
James,
“Wikinazi” cuts MT on a couple of levels – being French and “just following orders.”
I also want to make clear – for the audience and not you - that I’m not calling myself an expert but a specialist. Maybe after another decade or two, but not yet.
April 20th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
You are being very modest.
As for Messr. Thibault, I guess I should have termed him “EUROCRAT,” rather than “BUREACRAT,” seeing as how Europeans seem to be capable of taking their bureacratic zeal to a new level, especially with the EU.