I want to draw a picture of a somewhat current debate in the Wikipedia article on Zen. I am a bit worried as to whether doing so would constitute canvassing, but I don’t think it’s my intention to alter the voting or the discussion. Quite another is my intention. My intention is to discuss how Wikipedia works, these interactions and debate somehow illustrative of how wikipedia works.
The discussion is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zen#Suggestions
An IP address, someone without an account and without much knowledge of how wikipedia works tried to argue towards moving the article on Zen in wikipedia towards “Zen is against meditation”:
Adding the following books to the reading list as they all cover zen topics and are not currently included:
[...]
Instant zen, Waking up in the present - Thomas Cleary
Dogen's manual of zen meditation - Carl Bielefeldt
[...]
___
Providing a list of known zen masters, including: Baizhang, Foyan, Huineng, Daman Hongren, Bodhidharma, Joshu, Nansen, Mazu, Huangbo, Lin-Chi, Layman Pang, Miazhong, Dahui, Deshan, Sengcan, Daoxin, Dongshan and Huike
___
Dividing zen into the classical zen and the modern interpetation of it by use of different headers.
____
Adding conflicting views, for both the modern and classic works, to keep things neutral.
At some point after much ado about primary versus secondary source a user commented
I suggest the conversation would be more productive if we were to examine concrete proposals for changing the existing article rather than dealing with abstract matters regarding sources and personal matters the editors.
Another user agrees:
If you can make a proposal that you think fits Wikipedia's requirements, we can look at that proposal and have a discussion about whether it fits the requirements.
Eventually the user managed to suggest for example at least one productive and concrete suggestion
You could change "Buddha Nature Texts" to "Zen Scriptures" and refer to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_scriptures Or refer to it some other appropriate place and add (some of) the "primary texts" there.
at some point the editor editing from an IP posts
Sorry, english is not my first language.
which perhaps was part of the whole difficulty of editing and trying to edit the encyclopedia and dealing with conflict with other editors. But eventually some edits were indeed finally substantially suggested, and quickly rejected with a number of wikipedia arguments such as “cherry picking” and “editorializing”
the IP address editor at some point commented on the sexual scandal of Suzuki
I don't think anyone who is a(n enlightened) zen teacher or able to accurately percieve truth would make the mistake of giving his sangha over to someone like Richard Baker.
After all this debate one of the experienced users commented finally it seems somewhat convinced by the arguments persistently laid out by the IP address contributor
I have to admit that the observation that classical Chan-texts (seem to) reject Chan-meditation is to the point; yet the conclusion that (the whole) Zen-tradition rejects meditation is incorrect. Those sources, which are up-to-date and well-informed, in contrast to Blofeldt and Watts, explain the logic behind this apparent rejection.
[...] this "rhetorical purity" created sustained confusion for the Chan-tradition, which exists up to today: how to express doctrine, when this doctrine seems to reject doctrine?
Is this conversation about Zen worthy of your attention? Is is collaborative or constructive? Is it healthy? Is it possible to edit wikipedia or do debate within wikipedia? I do not claim to know the answer or do defend one position unrestrictedly. I defend wikipedia in a limited fashion. There is indeed ownership of specific articles by users. People do have conflicts and edit war and disrespect each other on the platform. Sometimes users have prejudices or defend prejudices. Sometimes they are proud of their ignorance. But all this is much like in the rest of the world. It is hard to accept that you can be wrong, that you have made a mistake. It is easier also to judge other's wrongdoings than to try to act yourself, than to try to start or do something yourself.
A user spoke of trying to make or work on the wiki for r/zen. I think such conflicts as the one depicted here are the kind we might have in a wiki. People wanting concrete suggestions to talk about and criticize as opposed to just rhetorical posturings, or criticisms that are not aimed at specific changes to the article.
This is a continuation of the series I think I proposed myself to make on Zen in wikipedia. I hope it is an adequate and constructive addition to the dialogue about Zen and about how best to discuss Zen and about wikis, r/Zen's and Wikipedia itself. If you read the entire thing I'm stunned! Thanks! kkkkk
Submitted May 20, 2020 at 08:17AM by 2bitmoment https://ift.tt/3cQqpuy
No comments:
Post a Comment