<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>

<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
<title type="text">Joseph Reagle</title>
<subtitle type="html"><![CDATA[
Open Communities, Media, Source, and Standards
]]></subtitle>
<id>http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/godwins-law</id>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://reagle.org/joseph/blog" />
<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/godwins-law?flav=atom" />


<author>
<name>Joseph Reagle</name>
<uri>http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/godwins-law</uri>
<email></email>
</author>
<rights>Copyright 2003-2010 Joseph Reagle</rights>
<generator uri="http://pyblosxom.sourceforge.net/" version="1.4.3 01/10/2008">
PyBlosxom http://pyblosxom.sourceforge.net/ 1.4.3 01/10/2008
</generator>

<updated>2005-11-14T17:21:19Z</updated>
<!-- icon?  logo?  -->

<entry>
<title type="html">Godwin&apos;s Law</title>
<category term="" />
<id>http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/2005/11/14/godwins-law</id>
<updated>2005-11-14T17:21:19Z</updated>
<published>2005-11-14T17:21:19Z</published>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/godwins-law.html" />
<content type="html">

&lt;p&gt;On October 4, 2005, I had the good fortune to meet &lt;a
href=&quot;http://www.godwinslaw.org/&quot;&gt;Mike Godwin&lt;/a&gt; at the &lt;a
href=&quot;http://www.law.nyu.edu/ili/colloquia/index.html&quot;&gt;ITS Colloquium&lt;/a&gt;.
Godwin is famous for his adage that as the duration of a USENET discussion
grows, so does the probability of a comparison with Hitler or Nazis. During
the seminar the topic of Wikipedia arose and Mike, sitting two seats away,
nudged me and said he had an interesting story to tell.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin&apos;s_law&quot;&gt;Godwin&apos;s Law&lt;/a&gt; is
now quite old, few use the USENET for discussion, but the observation remains
potent because while Godwin spoke to a feature of human discourse, that
though exaggerated on discussion groups, transcends a particular media.
Indeed, Senator Rick Santorum started a controversy with just such a
comparison this summer.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Godwin notes that his observation was penned specifically as a memetic
experiment: to pose an idea and see how it perpetuates and mutates in the
field of popular discourse. The law has been fecund, leading to variants and
malapropisms. Ironically, when someone unknowingly uses one of these variants
she might be attacked by a dogmatic defender of the orthodoxy, provoking
allusions to fascist language Nazis, thus proving the adage.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;In any case, the Wikipedia experience that Godwin wished to share was
about the article on Godwin&apos;s Law. While modifying the article to more
accurately reflect the history of the meme, some other editors objected. The
trinity of Wikipedia policies is that editors should be neutral in their
presentation of claims, not include original -- and potentially crackpot --
research, and provide citations such that any such claim can be verified by
others. So, this story brings us to the interesting question of how does the
primary source, such as Godwin, edit a related article? While recognizing
Godwin&apos;s authority, one might also then challenge his neutrality and
reporting of primary claims. It is not uncommon for contributors to create
&quot;vanity&quot; edits (pages or links) that are rebuffed with these policies when
the edit is not of encyclopedic merit. But what of when the edit is of merit?
Are the most qualified primary sources disqualified from editing the
Wikipedia article? Need a primary source published her first person claim
elsewhere before it can bear upon the Wikipedia article?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</content>
</entry>
</feed>
