Talk:Archive:Ombudsman/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 16:48, 13 March 2024

This discussion page is for any requests for my involvement in disputes as Ombudsman, and any comments on my actions as Ombudsman, and any comments of the role of Ombudsman.Gareth Leng 12:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a low tolerance for personal attacks on any member of Citizendium. I expect every message here be civil, professional, and respectful of other members. Complaints about behaviour of other Citizens should be directed to the Constabulary and not to me. By all means explain disputes here - and feel free to debate openly with me on issues. But any messages that contain any infringement of civility and professionalism will be deleted. It should be assumed that their contents are completely forgotten by me, though not necessarily by the Constabulary.'Gareth Leng 15:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks; Content issues

The text here has been moved to the Talk page of WikiLeaks, including all discussion. A copy of my review of the content issues may be found on the Ombudsman Decisions subpage Gareth Leng 17:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler

Below is a copy of a request made today to the Management Council.

"Following the dispute on Adolf Hitler I gave my interpretation of the Charter, and specifically relating to Article 40 clause 3. "All Citizens shall have the right to a fair hearing, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: the opportunity to present one's case in one's defense, the right to be heard by a fair and unprejudiced body, the right to have others offer testimony on one's behalf"

My interpretation of the Charter is that the Editorial Council has the final say on matters of content (given that their say is consistent with the Charter) and therefore its decisions on content cannot be appealed except on those grounds. I interpret the clause above as applying only to disciplinary actions taken against individuals.

Can you please either affirm my interpretation or reject it."

On the Talk page of Adolf Hitler I also made some obervations that I repeat below

"This case also raises some general issues of importance relating to content, - and also raises some issues of behaviour, in particular the apparent "rights" of editors to "own" articles that they have written, and exactly what constitutes relevant expertise. An early principle was that when an editor writes an article he or she is acting as an author not an editor and should not exercise editorial authority over that content. This is a principle best exercised lightly, but editorial authority is generally best exercised lightly. If an article is truly specialist and intended for academic reading, as some here are, it is likely to be written by an expert and unlikely to be challenged unless by other experts. However, if an article is intended for lay readers then its structure and content must be open to challenge and constructive input from those it is intended to reach. The art of good writing is to convey ideas clearly and concisely from one mind to another, and the task of an expert is to achieve that while ensuring that the process is a balanced and objective representation of current knowledge and understanding. Now anyone has a valid contribution to make by questioning whether such an article does in fact achieve those aims. Anyone may question whether the logic of an article is clear, whether the language is fluent and accessible, whether the structure is helpful, whether the evidence is appropriately sourced, whether the content is interesting and appropriate, and no expert judgement is required for these things - for these are the things by which the quality of an article must also be judged. It must be open for readers to judge whether changes to an article are an improvement, and they should not be intimidated from making such judgements; quite the contrary - an expert who ignores his readership is no expert." Gareth Leng 14:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you made this as a formal request, and you presumably have access to the Management Council email that I do not, would you please pass along that I disagree vehemently with your interpretation, and that I request that I be able to formally present the reasons for that disagreement privately, if the Management Council takes up the review of your request. I see no point in arguing it in the unstructured environment of talk pages. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Management Council can be contacted through their private forum or you may contact them individually through their citizendium email accounts. D. Matt Innis 16:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, no special access. I should have made it clearer that my request to the MC was exactly as written, - it did not include the comments below that I posted on the Talk page of Adolf Hitler; they are irrelevant to the issue of Charter interpretation. Gareth Leng 18:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please post any correspondence relating to my role as Ombudsman

Gareth, you already have a user page. This is CZ:Ombudsman, not CZ:Gareth, so the phrase "relating to my role" should be changed to the role. And then the page should be edited so as not to provide a different version of the Charter than the Charter we actually have. David Finn 12:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for being slow to respond. This page is for any comments and discussion about my actions and decisions as Ombudsmun, not about the role of Ombudsman per se. I've changed 'my role' to 'my actions'. My user page should not be used for discussion about my actions as Ombudsman.

I've now given the full text of Article 39 rather than just the key sentences that define the scope.Gareth Leng 10:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Political messages

I have added this post to the forums regarding the recent protest over SOPA/PIPA, requesting Ombudsman input over whether such campaigns are outside Article 23 and which Council is responsible for future policy. Thanks. John Stephenson 13:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll consider this.Gareth Leng 11:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 '''I have a low tolerance for personal attacks on any member of ''Citizendium''. I expect every message here be civil, professional, and respectful of other members. Complaints about behaviour of other Citizens should be directed to the Constabulary and not to me. By all means explain disputes here - and feel free to debate openly with me on issues. But any messages that contain any infringement of civility and professionalism will be deleted. It should be assumed that their contents are ''completely'' forgotten by me, though not necessarily by the Constabulary.''''[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 15:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 ==WikiLeaks; Content issues==
-I'm going to deal with content issues and behaviour issues separately. For now this is ''only'' about content issues.
+The text here has been moved to the Talk page of WikiLeaks, including all discussion. A copy of my review of the content issues may be found on the Ombudsman Decisions subpage [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 17:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
-[[WikiLeaks]] is a draft article, ostensibly about a website, but inevitably engaging in a highly controversial topic of wide importance. The issue is how to approach this in a way that is objective and scholarly. The dispute engages two different visions of Citizendium; should ''all'' articles be "a collaborative effort to collect, structure, and cultivate knowledge" according to principles of academic scholarship? Or are some articles better as a detailed, annotated log of significant events and opinions? Two editors adopt different positions; to one, the second position is flawed; it cannot produce a coherent, objective and neutral commentary. To the other, a log of events and opinions is valuable and informative, can be objective in the sense of avoiding an editorial tone, and can be neutral by ensuring balance in the selection of quotes and events.
+==Adolf Hitler==
+Below is a copy of a request made today to the Management Council.
-The first editor asserts that academic objectivity requires a structured approach to the issues, and that extensive use of quotes subverts that process. Specifically, this editor feels that the article at present takes a “US-centric approach” by characterising the issues from the perspective of US interests, and expanding the article to encompass all other perspectives would make it chaotic. By his view, the better, academically objective approach might be more to look at the global significance of WikiLeaks, and to structure the article (for example) by characterising the issues of principle involved: freedom of speech; freedom of information; the roles and responsibilities of a free press in a liberal democracy; ''Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?''; the need to hold governments accountable; how governments operate and the rights of the governed to know that; how these things are balanced by threats to individual liberty or national security; the impact that open disclosure may have on the quality of government etc. etc.
+"Following the dispute on [[Adolf Hitler]]  I gave my interpretation of the Charter, and specifically relating to Article 40 clause 3. "All Citizens shall have the right to a fair hearing, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: the opportunity to present one's case in one's defense, the right to be heard by a fair and unprejudiced body, the right to have others offer testimony on one's behalf"
-Any selection of quotes or events on such a hot and divisive issues is likely to be contentious. The second editor has portrayed a broad spread of opinion in his selection of quotes – but at present the article solely addresses the perceived impact on US interests -  i.e. they are opinions (positive and negative) about the impact of WikiLeaks ''as it concerns the US'', or they engage in discussion of the particular organisational aspects of WikiLeaks, but do not directly address the fundamental issues of ethos and principle.
+My interpretation of the Charter is that the Editorial Council has the final say on matters of content (given that their say is consistent with the Charter) and therefore its decisions on content cannot be appealed except on those grounds. I interpret the clause above as applying only to disciplinary actions taken against individuals.
-Past WikiLeaks disclosures have for example included publishing the BNP membership list, with no direct US interests engaged; but even disclosures of US diplomatic information engage not only US interests but global interests. They, for example, engage issues between Saudi Arabia and Iran - and whether disclosing ''those'' matters is in the global public interest is separate from the issue of whether disclosure is in the US interests. It might (or might not) be that disclosing ''that'' is in  the long term interests of peace, but not in short-term US diplomatic interests.
+Can you please either affirm my interpretation or reject it."
-The WikiLeaks disclosures even before the latest episode were far reaching and controversial. The volume of disclosed material is massive. This article cannot attempt to log all significant disclosures and discuss them all objectively by all their potential implications. There needs to be some basis for selecting what things to report; and one basis would be that those chosen best exemplify particular issues. ''That'' seems to require that the issues be first identified in an article roadmap.
+On the Talk page of [[Adolf Hitler]] I also made some obervations that I repeat below
-It's a challenge. But first, have I got this account of the content dispute about right? [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 17:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
+"This case also raises some general issues of importance relating to content, - and also raises some issues of behaviour, in particular the apparent "rights" of editors to "own" articles that they have written, and exactly what constitutes relevant expertise. An early principle was that when an editor writes an article he or she is acting as an author not an editor and should not exercise editorial authority over that content. This is a principle best exercised lightly, but editorial authority is generally best exercised lightly. If an article is truly specialist and intended for academic reading, as some here are, it is likely to be written by an expert and unlikely to be challenged unless by other experts. However, if an article is intended for lay readers then its structure and content must be open to challenge and constructive input from those it is intended to reach. The art of good writing is to convey ideas clearly and concisely from one mind to another, and the task of an expert is to achieve that while ensuring that the process is a balanced and objective representation of current knowledge and understanding. Now anyone has a valid contribution to make by questioning whether such an article does in fact achieve those aims. Anyone may question whether the logic of an article is clear, whether the language is fluent and accessible, whether the structure is helpful, whether the evidence is appropriately sourced, whether the content is interesting and appropriate, and no expert judgement is required for these things - for these are the things by which the quality of an article must also be judged. It must be open for readers to judge whether changes to an article are an improvement, and they should not be intimidated from making such judgements; quite the contrary - an expert who ignores his readership is no expert."
+[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 14:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
-::It is a great challenge -- even for good social scientists -- so do not apologise for any omissions, Gareth. In broad terms it is correct. I should like to add, though, that the original article -- before I started deleting things -- had an almost prurient focus on the early life of the Wikileaks founder, Assange. I am not opposed to some mention of it, but -- as with other disputes -- it is the context and implied meaning of this material that is of concern. It read to me (and you should check the original draft in hte history) something like the typical accounts of the early life of Hitler -- a pyschopathological portrait of a social deviant. Given that this article -- according to its principal author -- is supposed to be about the institution of Wikileaks, I question the inclusion of such materials. I also question absolutely the claim that the activities of WikiLeaks are peripheral to the institution itself: its whole raison d'etre is to publish confidential materials, so how can its activities be other than central? Finally, I do not think that swathes of detailed material about internet and computing issues are of any value in this article, other than the very recent issues involving domain names and ISPs and political interference in the right of Wikileaks to exist on the web. These are massive issues of internet governance that merit an article on its own, but have emerged for the first time (to my knowledge) in this case. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 17:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
+:Since you made this as a formal request, and you presumably have access to the Management Council email that I do not, would you please pass along that I disagree vehemently with your interpretation, and that I request that I be able to formally present the reasons for that disagreement privately, if the Management Council takes up the review of your request. I see no point in arguing it in the unstructured environment of talk pages. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
-::No, I don't think so. I must apologize because I'm having computer problems and am writing this on a borrowed laptop, with limited access. First, there was no discussion, but massive deletions with nothing more specific than "violation of neutrality policy".  Second, the initial writeup or additions slightly thereafter were addressed to the formation of Wikileaks, including correspondence with people other than Assange to [[Steven Aftergood]], John Young, and [[Daniel Ellsberg]], who happen to be Americans but have a worldwide reputation.
-::As a Computers Editor, which Martin is not, I believe the material on the denial of service are very relevant.
-::I have offered, repeatedly, to have multiple articles on this subject. With hundreds of thousands of articles, no single article can cover all the issues. For example, I could write on the military documents, something Martin is hardly qualified to do. I have no objection to a separate article on the international political aspects.  It does not seem helpful, however, to bring sincere work on the first article to a halt, because it does not meet the expectations of one individual. Note that Nick and Sandy suggested the article was not biased, but incomplete, and was becoming more incomplete before Martin caused all work to stop. Martin would not agree to Sandy's proposal to rewrite.  As far as status, Martin and I are both Politics Editors, although he keeps attacking my competence in politics.  He does not have special status to blank articles or to control the work of others.
-::Gareth, would you please send me an email, simply so I can have your address? That's on the broken computer. I will be able to respond in more depth when I go to the public library this afternoon and have more time at the keyboard.
-::{{UnsignedShort|Howard C. Berkowitz}}
-I do not think presentation of views should be done by email, unless the material is posted here. Much of Gareth's commentary on my views is "reading between the lines" and connecting dots in what is a disjoined and confrontational discourse. He has done a very good job with that, however. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 18:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
-:::I asked for Gareth's email simply because I don't have it; don't presume what I will or will not send him. I do plan to start an outline of several related articles on this topic, and also begin notes on how some of the documents disclosed affect existing articles such as [[Iranian nuclear program]] and [[Afghanistan War (2001-)]].
-:::As there are significant Internet issues in this article, Computers expertise is relevant. I'd suggest another Computers editor experienced in Internet governance (Pat comes to mind) be involved, or Authors who are expert (Sandy and Dave McQuigg, for example).  There is also a significant Military component, as Wikileaks did not start with the recent disclosures; it has been leaking military documents since 2006-2007 (my notes aren't at hand), and certainly a major military release earlier this year. Indeed, Wikileaks is not the only source of major military disclosures for various countries. With the US, I mention the [[Pentagon Papers]], and with Israel, the leaks from Mordechai Vanunu and Victor Ostrovsky.  Other intelligence disclosures, specifically addressing information from embassies, include Peter Wright (''Spycatcher'') for the UK and "Victor Suvorov (pseud.)" for the Soviet Union, especially ''Inside the Aquarium''.  There are a number of relevant articles in the [[human-source intelligence]], [[signals intelligence]], and [[measurement and signature intelligence]] hierarchies. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
-:::::OK. I propose that my summary above be placed on the Talk page as a summary of the dispute and as a guide to help the evolution of a plan for an objective Main article. I suggest that Howard outlines a plan of related articles on the Related Articles page of WikiLeaks, and moves relevant material from the main article to those as he begins them. Any comments before I finalise that?[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 09:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
+::The Management Council can be contacted through [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/board,94.0.html their private forum] or you may contact them individually through their citizendium email accounts. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 16:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
-(undent) Should we unlock the article? [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 00:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
+:::Indeed, no special access. I should have made it clearer that my request to the MC  was exactly as written, - it did not include the comments below that I posted on the Talk page of [[Adolf Hitler]]; they are irrelevant to the issue of Charter interpretation. [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 18:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
-: The EC is discussing a motion on this issue [http://locke.citizendium.org/cz_ec/DR-2010-005]. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 01:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
-:: The article appears to be unlocked. I edited it today. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]]
+== Please post any correspondence relating to my role as Ombudsman ==
-::: Yes, I guess I should have said, "Should we keep it unlocked?" [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 03:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
+Gareth, you already have a user page. This is CZ:Ombudsman, not CZ:Gareth, so the phrase "relating to '''my''' role" should be changed to '''the''' role. And then the page should be edited so as not to provide a different version of the Charter than the Charter we actually have. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 12:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
-In the comments on the EC motion, Aleta says "Sandy Harris has demonstrated a facility with neutral writing, which in my view qualifies him to do the writing, but he is not a subject expert. This article desperately needs one (or two or five)." She's right, of course. I actually am a subject expert on some aspects of this, the technical Internet and [[cryptography]] issues, and the origins of some of the ideas in [[cypherpunk]] thinking. However, this is a rather complex topic and experts in several other areas are needed. Moreover, it is highly controversial so much discussion on point-of-view may be required.
+: Sorry for being slow to respond. This page is for any comments and discussion about my actions and decisions as Ombudsmun, not about the role of Ombudsman ''per se''. I've changed 'my role' to 'my actions'. My user page should not be used for discussion about my actions as Ombudsman.
-I've started a rewrite at [[User:Sandy_Harris/WikiLeaks]]. Several sections are horribly incomplete as yet, but a structure is visible. Comment is invited; I am not sure if it should go here or at [[User_talk:Sandy_Harris/WikiLeaks]]. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 08:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
+I've now given the full text of Article 39 rather than just the key sentences that define the scope.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 10:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
-:: I propose to raise objections to any drafting that refers to the benefits from  WikiLeaks  but does not give adequate weight to the offsetting  practical consequences of promoting theft. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 08:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
+==Political messages==
+I have added [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,4247.msg45149.html#msg45149 this post] to the forums regarding the recent protest over SOPA/PIPA, requesting Ombudsman input over whether such campaigns are outside [[CZ:Charter#Article 23|Article 23]] and which Council is responsible for future policy. Thanks. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 13:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
+:Thanks; I'll consider this.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 11:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Archive:Ombudsman/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 16:48, 13 March 2024

Contents

WikiLeaks; Content issues

Adolf Hitler

Please post any correspondence relating to my role as Ombudsman

Political messages

Navigation menu

Talk:Archive:Ombudsman/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 16:48, 13 March 2024

WikiLeaks; Content issues

Adolf Hitler

Please post any correspondence relating to my role as Ombudsman

Political messages

Navigation menu

Search