Talk:Archive:Ombudsman/Archive 1

Archive:Ombudsman

Current talk page

Archive 1

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

I'm going to deal with content issues and behaviour issues separately. For now this is only about content issues.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's a challenge. But first, have I got this account of the content dispute about right? Gareth Leng 17:17, 6 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. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:48, 6 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.

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. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)