In Good Faith
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
Winston Churchill – 1947.
I think Churchill had anticipated well that the age of Internet, with its blogs and wikis, was bound to come.
It’s a remarkable experience to be a part of an age where a post-democratic system is in the making, virtually.
I’ve been an editor on Wikipedia for more than two years now. And two of the fundamental guidelines that are invoked and cited almost daily state that: Wikipedia is not a democracy, and polling is not a substitute for discussion. The main and preferred way to tackle a dispute on Wikipedia is discussion, and consensus. Controversial topics may take days and months in discussion over every word and articulation until there is a consensus on the issue. A valid compromise is one that guarantees that the majority can’t coerce the minority or bully it, and at the same time, that the minority won’t disrupt the collective effort of the group by being disgustingly brushed aside.
Yesterday, Al-Mudawen, a Syrian bloggers portal, announced the first Annual Competition for the Best Syrian Blogs. A commendable effort taken by Al-Mudawen to bolster a Syrian blogosphere shaken by a repressive internet censorship regime and its own internal rifts. I was honored to be selected as part of the Judges committee which will oversee the evaluation of the blogs that enter. I was glad and quick to accept this gesture, not as a “contest” but rather a collective effort to bring more attention and more activity to this blogosphere.
When the contest was announced however, a condition which was inadvertently added stirred a certain amount of controversy among bloggers. The condition read:
The contents of which [the submitted blog] must not dissent from the accepted mores and morals (i.e. sex through videos or photos, hostility to religions, cussing, swearing and bad taste).
Abu Fares was very quick to hit back, quite elegantly, at these ambiguous prerequisites and their premise, and I received a few emails to inquire about it.
The discussion that followed was an interesting experience. After years at Wikipedia, I’ve learned to always start a discussion while assuming good faith, and this was very much inline with that. And while there was a major disagreement on the most fundamental issues, Omar Mushaweh, the Admin of Al-Mudawen, (and the only representative from the site in the contest, it should be mentioned), was quite courteous in understanding the reservations that I, and other Judges, had on said prerequisite. And he readily accepted to remove it.
Yes, I personally wouldn’t like to read blogs that are of abusive sexual nature, or ones that completely disregard and insult other people who may differ with its point of view (be it religious people, or homosexual atheists). But if there happened to be a Syrian blog which advocated that, I wouldn’t mind having it add itself to the competition, only to be disregarded later in favor of blogs with actual substance. In fact, it only helps to show how low quality (in any sense) writing, is readily disregarded by most people.
It is interesting to note, that while there was no consensus on the issue itself, there was a consensus on resolving the issue. Not to make a big deal out of it, but it is a refreshing incidence in a blogosphire that is growing more and more apart, and more and more bitter.
Personal disagreements aside, today I’ve come out with greater respect for Omar, and this experiment as a whole. It is worth noting that while Syria Planet and Al-Mudawen do seem to represent very different currents in the Syrian blogosphere, with Syria Planet more heavily influenced by English blogs, and Al-Mudawen by Arabic ones. This should not be an acceptable status quo. Tensions are bound to happen, but voices, ugly ones included, should be, and must be, represented.
Internet is not a democracy, but a more fundamentally free forum, in the most extreme expressions of freedom. And thus should be treated.
Please do add your blogs here, and let us enjoy a little experiment, in good faith.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Well said, Yazan!
The majority is not always right, that is a fact. In a pure democracy, both the majority and the minority each have common interests and that is basically the only rope holding them together. Once the cards get shuffled, the positions change and individuals whose interests do not match the group’s anymore, end up disappointed and bitter. Eventually, many of those who find themselves at the short end turn to extremes to show off their difference from the “evil” group and its “corrupt” stands. Now, if only the concepts of compromise and consensus were practiced as thoroughly as pure lobbying, we could see some sunbeams shining through again.
You can be proud of what you’re doing in that virtual world! Let’s hope it will rub off on our real world.
August 11th, 2009 at 1:46 am
I too have respect to Omar, regardless of major disagreements with him, but my respect to his flexibility is perhaps the only reason why I didn’t make a big deal out of the fifth condition stated on the contest’s page.
Nevertheless, this condition does not stand on its own when it comes to Almudawen’s problems. On AlMudawwen’s “add your blog” page, the same condition appears at the bottom of the “conditions” list to add a blog.
My reservation on Almudawwen is not about a condition, but a rhetoric, a pattern that seems to be part of its community, and I find it weird, that even though they want to encourage Syrian virtual networking, they seem to be having an idea who and how this virtual syrian community will look like; it should not “dissent from the accepted mores and morals” [it does not mention what exactly are these morals, not on the contest page nor on Almudawwen add-your-blog page]. So only Al Mudawwen knows what are “our morals”.
It’s like what Nasr Hamed Abu Zaid said at his last visit to Beirut one year ago:
عندما يتحدث العرب عن الديموقراطية, يبدأون بالحماية
It’s worth to note, that posts on intimacy and sex is another approach to understanding a given society. So if there is a blogger telling us about Hash and sex, I think it tells us a lot about a certain society that it exists in Syria and it’s marginalized by “our given morals”. By marginalizing these voices, we are to put it bluntly: censors, worst type of censors, since we advocate “free speech”. I don’t mind at all, for almudawwen to accept certain voices, but it should be clear about it, presenting itself as accepting like-minded voices, but i think it’s not right to say something and do otherwise.
One last thing about “swearing religions”, I think many of Syrian bloggers, myself included, swear other bloggers, on just about every single post we don’t like. that links to your good faith idea, which i think many of us lack in our virtual matureness. so i guess it’s a better idea, if i may suggest, that al mudawwen would favor bloggers who dont swear at all, since after all, to be a blogger is to speak. it’s better to focus on “bad approach” than bad appeoach on “religion”.
I like Omar, and some of Almudawwen community, i respect a lot their efforts, it’s inspiring indeed, but there are problems in their rhetoric that i consider problematic and i am not so encouraged to participate in any of its activities. nevertheless, i am watching it closely,hopefully it will change in time.
August 11th, 2009 at 1:57 am
Bravo Yazan for extending your hand in good faith.
Razan ze3lani menni and I have no idea why. But I like you still the same.
August 11th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
I’m not really sure what you mean by “post-democratic”. Democracy is a form of government. I’d describe wikipedia as the worst of the “design by committee” mentality of the corporate world. And I’d describe blogs (in a political context) as either a form of dissent or a form of propaganda, depending on the intent of the blogger. I don’t quite get the tie in to democracy? Freedom of expression?
August 11th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
أبو فارس, ما عاش ياللي بدو يزعل منك, الحقيقة أنا خجلانة منك, بس انته قلبك كبير ونحنا منستاهل :)
August 13th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
[...] aftermath of Abu Fares‘ observations, analyzed the situation and, following its resolution, wrote: The discussion that followed was an interesting experience. After years at Wikipedia, I’ve [...]
August 13th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
[...] aftermath of Abu Fares‘ observations, analyzed the situation and, following its resolution, wrote: The discussion that followed was an interesting experience. After years at Wikipedia, I’ve [...]