"The subject of this article is controversial and may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless." -Wikipedia guideline for battle
This year the controversy escalated when Prince William was sent to the Falkland Islands for military training two months prior to the 30th anniversary of the conflict that took place between Great Britain and Argentina in 1982. The dispute over the islands has been revived by the presidency of Cristina Fernandez de Kichner who claims the British have illegally occupied the islands since 1833. The issue has been widely debated by the respective media of both nations, and demands and accusations have been brought to international organisms such as the United Nations. The Falkland war is well buried in the past and the aggressive rhetoric will not materialize into a new military conflict. Nevertheless, the heated debate that incites both the passions of Argentinians and Brits alike has reached the online free encyclopedia: Wikipedia. The Falkland Islands entry is a battle to maintain neutrality and at the same time impose national and subjective historical views. This is a war for information, where contributors seek the power and the administration's approval to write history.
The subject of much heated debate in the "Falkland Islands" page on Wikipedia is the entry: "Britain re-established its rule in 1833, yet the islands continue to be claimed by Argentina. In 1982, following Argentina's invasion of the islands, the two-month-long undeclared Falklands War between both countries resulted in the surrender of all Argentine forces." Grupo7-ARI2012 sparks the online war of language and rhetoric advocating for neutrality, "try to be careful with the words you use," he suggests. For this user, to write that Britain reestablished its rule and that Argentina invaded the islands expresses the view that Argentinians where "bad invaders" and the Brits "good real owners." The user supports his argument by switching the positions and determining it would also be unfair to say "Britain invaded the islands in 1833, yet the islands belonged to Argentina." Instantly a thread is created were other users support or attack Grupo7-ARI2012's original complaint.
The controversy centers on the words "invasion" and "occupation." According to Wikipedia, an "invasion" is a "military offensive" with armed forced of "one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity." While "occupation" lies under "military occupation" which is an "effective provisional control of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity." The question here is who invaded whom? And are the islands being occupied?
User Kahastok attempts to be a mediator claiming that even though the facts are "awkward" to one side or the other that does not give contributors "the excuse to rewrite history." When building their arguments users cite other Wikipedia pages as sources. Users also take on the administration for leaving the post intact. MarshalN20 says, "IP editors are incorrect in thinking that occupation is a neutral term that can replace invasion." However, he goes on further and cites The Hague Convention -which according to the user stipulates that Argentina invaded and occupied the islands and that these were "liberated" by Britain. Then the discussion turns on the word "liberation" and users even cite the WWII "invasion of Normandy" to make a point: were the U.S. forces a "liberating" army?
Wikipedia propels the scrutinizing and often the redefinition of language. However, content is not the only thing being surveilled. User Grupo7-ARI2012 is suspected of "sockpuppetry" meaning another user has accused Grupo7-ARI2012 of "using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes." The community has an investigation page were the defendant must respond to the evidence. This is an online community that polices and that has come up with a justice system of its own. To present a case a user must write an evidence statement, identify a name for the case, create a report page, keep the case updated and notify the users being accused. Information and its providers are constantly judged and inspected on Wikipedia.
Neutrality takes the form of justice on Wikipedia. This is the premise of the site and what drives the Falkland Islands online debate. The second of five Wikipedia pillars states entries are written from a neutral point of view that stresses a "balanced and impartial manner" that offers "multiple points of view." The mission to achieve true neutrality is what drives most of the site's discussion and debate. Wikipedia does not want neutral users, but demands contributors to provide both sides of the coin and strive for a piece of information that lays all facts, opinions, an opposing views on the table in an equal fashion. Brits and Argentinians could learn from the bipartisan solutions sprouting on Wikipedia.
Argentina and Britain will not take the Falkland Island debate on Wikipedia seriously; in fact, most institutions choose to disregard this stigmatized site. Most High schools and colleges fail to understand that Wikipedia is the champion of skepticism. Through the goal of neutrality Wikipedia ignites an online debate that challenges the very institution of history, promoting skepticism on traditional and subjective views of historic events. This is the type of debate we encounter in the Falkland Islands Wikipedia entry. One can easily access the "talk" section on each Wikipedia page and view what entries have been and are currently being disputed as opposed to history textbooks where the author's bias is imposed and traditional views of history are recurrent. With Wikipedia the notion of the winner writing history is challenged, as winners, losers and third parties are obliged to debate the "facts." Perhaps, the reason institutions are fearful of Wikipedia is that it democratizes knowledge. The site embodies participatory culture and challenges our established "truths." Moreover, Wikipedia can be seen as an icon of democracy for its ability to encourage participation. According to the online community Quora, Wikipedia has approximately 100,000 contributors that participate in 12 million edits on a monthly basis.
Wikipedia will not resolve an international dispute. Nevertheless, the site is increasingly becoming a forum that challenges subjective, traditional, and institutionalized information -- in the case of the Falklands Islands, history. The entry remains intact and the notion that Britain "reestablished" its rule and that Argentina "invaded" prevails. However, looking at how information wars are conducted on Wikipedia can help us better understand the benefits of consensus. Argentina and Great Britain are two democracies that will continue to have a respective take on what took place in 1982 on the Falkland Islands. Nevertheless, the real threat for Argentina's historic memory is not Britain's and vice versa. Wikipedia poses as a third power that will scrutinize, challenge and maybe in a near future even disprove what each of these nations holds to be a historic truth. Institutions, governments and international organisms may disregard these new conclusions. However, Wikipedia does not serve these powers, it serves the people and their knowledge.
In case you were curious as to the discovery of the islands.
There is still debate as to who first discovered the islands, with Portuguese, Spanish, French, English, and even Ottoman claims.
Out of all these different claims, only the English actually named the islands, first in 1592, John Davis (Captain of Desire), named them Davis Land, and in 1594 when they were visited by Richard Hawkins, who named them Hawkins Maidenland.
However, the first confirmed discovery of the islands was by the Dutch in 1600 who named them Sebald Islands.
The second "discovery", and first landing on the island was carried out by the British, with Captain John Strong, also being the first to sail between the islands.
He named the sound "Falkland sound", after the Antony Cary the 5th Viscount of Falklands, who was commissioner of the navy at the time.
The French would be the first to settle on the island in 1764, and they named it Îles Malouines, which is were the Spanish get Islas Malvinas.
Regards,
Oh and just by saying the article is about the Falklands is in itself taking the "Islanders" side.
How so? The Falklands is the correct name of the island archipelago.
As Ienuk points out, it is the correct name for the archipelago if you are speaking English.
If this article was in Spanish, i'd expect them to call it Malvines, just as if it was in French i'd expect them to call it, Malouines
The international community cannot countenance nation states trying to establish "rights" to territory controlled by other nation states for nearly 200 years, particularly when the population wants to maintain the status quo. The only result would be massive bloodshed and tyranny.
Like most U.S. citizens, I cheered when the Brits went and got their Islands back. With the whole anti-communist issue out of the way, I expect the U.S. government would be right behind Britain from the git go if the Argentinians try to take over again. The Argentinian claim is history. It is time they got over it.
The Falklands War was like a fight between a hairdresser and a retired schoolmaster over use of a parking space outside the salon. The schoolmaster has been parking there for years, even though it is miles away from his house. The hairdresser wants the space instead, even though he does not own a car.
Both get very furious at each other, for reasons nobody else understands very well (something to do with pride?), and thrash around ineffectively on the floor for a while. Those watching are amused at first but quickly become concerned at the ferocity and animosity on display. Both the parties involved finish up in a great deal of pain, and looking similarly ridiculous.
Neither man can freely use the parking space after this clash, but the schoolmaster claims victory. He is soon too old to drive but leaves his car in the space out of spite. The hairdresser never actually bothers to buy a car, but continues to agitate for the space he doesn't really need.
The combatants actively avoid each other on the street from that time on, and still bring up bitter memories of the fight to anyone who will listen, even decades later. They both remain convinced that the other guy started the fight, and that this conflict defines their very existence.
Many other people tell them that they are both being extremely silly and it's only a parking space, but neither will listen.
Disputed islands. War. One side won. One side lost.
Possession is disputed for one generation or so. After that possession is ownership.
Look up Kuril and Sakhalin Islands. Chance of Japan ever getting them back--zero.
realpolitik.
I don't see that anyone is hurt by the status quo. Insofar as I know, there are no people living on the island in settlement camps or denied citizenship rights.
I don't know if there were any individuals who owned land on the island who were dispossessed of it when the British established their current claim in 1833.
I really don't have any sympathy for the implicit Argentine argument of "we're the closest bigish country, so it should be ours".
Just leave things be. Only nursery tales are hurt by this.
This means that no matter what the truth is, what gets printed on wikipedia is what is printed in the AP or Reuters.
The AP and Reuters have ridiculous political alliances when it comes to south american politics. There is no chance that an accurate accounting of the situation will be presented there
I like that, good point.
Regards,