War of words: website can't define Cuba

Posted on Wed, May. 03, 2006

UP FRONT | WIKIPEDIA
War of words: website can't define Cuba
What's a neutral point of view? The Cuba entry in the online reference
site Wikipedia shows just how difficult it is for the volunteer-run
website to tackle politically charged subjects.
BY PABLO BACHELET
pbachelet@MiamiHerald.com

WASHINGTON - One editor complained that Havana sympathizers were
transforming a scholarly enterprise into ''their own private Fidel
Castro fan page.'' A user was tossed out after threatening to sue
another for libel.

The fuss is over the Cuba entry in Wikipedia, the free online
encyclopedia created, edited and administered entirely by volunteers
with the altruistic purpose of becoming a Web-based knowledge repository
for humanity.

But the Cuba entry, like those on President Bush and abortion, has been
snared in intense political divisions over everything from the impact of
U.S. sanctions on the communist-ruled island to whether it should have a
separate section on its human rights record. Russia and North Korea do not.

There have been so many dueling edits -- 30 entries on April 27 alone --
that the article has been placed off-limits to first-time or
unregistered users. The article has notices alerting readers that the
neutrality of four sections is under dispute.

A central tenet of Wikipedia is that articles must be written in a
neutral point of view. But, as the debate on the talk page attached to
the Cuba article demonstrates, neutrality is often in the eye of the
beholder.

The debate over Cuba turned intense after Adam Carr, who identifies
himself as having a Ph.D. in history from the University of Melbourne in
Australia and a gay rights activist, introduced this sentence high in
the article: ``Cuba is a socialist republic, in which the Communist
Party of Cuba is the sole legal political party, and is the only state
in the western hemisphere that is not a democracy.''

SPIRITED DEBATE

This prompted responses that went from scholarly citations of political
scientists with definitions of democracy, to accusations of
not-so-hidden political agendas.

Bruce Hallman wrote that calling Cuba undemocratic is a ''logical
fallacy'' because it applies ''capitalistic values'' in the context of a
socialist society. 'Might it be possible to write the article without
using the word `democracy' at all?'' he suggested.

''Sorry, comrade, no dice,'' answered Carr, one of the few writers who
posts a description of himself. ``These comments show quite clearly that
you are a communist, or at least someone who actively supports the
Castro dictatorship, not just . . . someone who is naïve about the
realities of Cuba.''

With neither side giving in, on April 15 a ''mediation cabal'' -- an
informal mediator -- joined the discussion. The cabal suggested citing
reputable sources to back the Cuba-is-not-a-democracy sentence.

''If we need a citation that Cuba is not a democracy, then maybe we need
citation that Cuba is in Latin America,'' retorts CJK, another user.

''Cuba is a dictatorship, plain and simple,'' says Carr, calling
Castro's foreign supporters ``gullible idiots.''

Failing to produce an agreement, the cabal departed after complaining
that several editors were being rude.

Others argued that if the article discusses human rights in Cuba, then
it should also point out U.S. human rights abuses. ''We will not be
distracted by the well-known communist diversionary tactic of playing
bogus moral equivalence games,'' Carr responded.

Scott Grayban, a talk page writer who claims to be a U.S. Air Force
veteran, calls Carr ''nothing more than a pro-Bush hate-Cuba type
person'' and in a separate e-mail threatened to sue Carr for libel. An
administrator promptly banned Grayban for life from editing Wikipedia.

Other users also have been banned, including ''Comandante,'' who has
changed the Cuba article more than 700 times. Another participant wrote
that Comandante's Internet address suggests he lives in Cuba.

POPULAR SITE

A few years ago, online discussions of this sort would have gone
unnoticed. But Wikipedia is now the 17th-most-visited site in the world,
according to Alexa Internet, a Web-ranking outfit owned by Amazon.com.

Created by Web entrepreneur Jimmy Wales, who today heads the foundation
that oversees the site, Wikipedia is an example of ''social computing''
-- the ability of users to create their own content without relying on
the filters of newspaper or hard-copy encyclopedia editors.

Wikipedia has had some stumbles. A hoax entry wrongly implicated
journalist John Seigenthaler in the JFK assassination. Several U.S.
congressional staffers have been caught altering their bosses' entries.

There are now 900 volunteer administrators patrolling the site to keep
troublemakers at bay, as well as formal arbitration mechanisms.

Most articles are uncontroversial, says Kat Walsh, an administrator for
Wikipedia. But ''where people are out fighting in the real world,
they're going to have differences of opinion on Wikipedia as well,'' she
said.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/cuba/14485633.htm