Minh’s Notes

I’m still not a fan of The Review, but the paper’s latest diatribe against the ethnic theme dorm program deserves comment, because I don’t think the reactions I’ve seen are adequate. The columnist rehashes the same points everyone throws at the program, and I know those points will be refuted in time, so I won’t rebut them point-by-point. Instead, I think I’ll keep your attention better with a higher-level defense of the program.

Disclaimer before I begin: the only ethnic theme dorm I’ve lived in is Casa Zapata, so I’m probably making ruthless generalizations here, but I believe the theme dorms have a lot in common anyways.

Ethnic theme dorms are not the one-day “multicultural fests” that your elementary school might’ve organized. They put a lot of effort into events throughout the year, exposing students to the many issues facing minorities in less fortunate sections of our society. Although the issues are typically discussed from the perspective of a particular ethnic group, they transcend race. For instance, Casa Zapata’s talks may mention illegal immigration with some frequency, but the community places importance on this issue more for protecting the poor than for protecting any particular race.

Ethnic theme dorms may exude more of a sense of community than other dorms do, but it’s not a matter of inclusion or exclusion, and it’s not a matter of who has more in common with whom. In my experience, ethnic theme dorms do more to keep everyone in the loop. It’s partly a matter of your dorm mates recognizing and greeting you when you’re more than 500 feet away from the dorm. Even if you’re not of the same ethnicity as they are. I was a freshman in Casa Zapata last year, and I certainly didn’t feel like that weird outsider who likes Mexican food. A lot of dorms, including non-themed dorms and especially fraternities, make similar attempts at creating a tight-knit community, but they don’t get called out for it, because – for example – “all the Roble kids sit at the same table” simply isn’t a valid complaint in our setting.

When I was little, I was under the naïve assumption that, if somehow everyone would just ignore each other’s race, everyone would eventually forget about it, and we could move on. It was naïve because it conflates two approaches: ignoring an individual’s race when interacting with them, and ignoring the topic of race altogether. The former approach is laudable: who cares whether you’re white or Asian or Hispanic when you’re playing cards with someone? However, the latter approach is unacceptable: if you ignore the issue of race, it doesn’t eliminate the problems that raised the issue in the first place.

We are in a university. It’s true that many of us have already overcome the “prejudice and poverty” that the ethnic theme dorms often discuss. But our role as students is to learn about the world’s problems, both technical and societal, both facing us and facing others. Our role is to take that knowledge and eventually work towards solving them. Those actually facing prejudice and poverty today are counting on us. Celebrating food or music or other aspects of a culture is just one aspect of an ethnic theme dorm. It’s somewhat of an icebreaker, to get everyone ready for the real issues.

It boils down to this question: do we want “racial harmony” just within our school, or do we want it for the society at large? If it’s the latter, we can’t settle for the columnist’s stop-gap solution of eliminating the discussion. Yes, after doing so, we will get bogged down in our schoolwork anyways and forget the whole thing happened. But what about those not fortunate enough to be here? We’re not just in it for ourselves.

Entry №1103, posted by Minh Nguyễn at 4:17 PM | Edit | Permalink
Categories: College, Politics, Society | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

When I was five, I was able to recite the alphabet, write with both hands, speak a smattering of Vietnamese, sing church hymns, and build rather primitive postmodern structures out of colorful, plastic, interconnecting building blocks (read: Legos). Minh’s Notes turns five today, and it still can’t do half that, although I suppose it has a respectable vocabulary.

Parenting tips, anyone?

For a brief rundown of what my site’s been through and how much the times have changed – I can tell you’re already excited – take a gander at last year’s blogiversary entry and my first entry.

Entry №1102, posted by Minh Nguyễn at 7:55 PM | Edit | Permalink
Categories: About, Humor, This Website | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (1)

I’ve been asked what I think about Essay’s fall from grace. (If you’re too tired to follow that link, basically a really high-ranking Wikipedian who claimed to be a “tenured professor” was exposed as a fake.)

Well, if it ever comes to me having to verify that I “attend Stanford University in California, where I’m majoring in computer science,” I guess I can point them to the CS Department’s directory. :^)

More to the point, though, from the English Wikipedia community’s standpoint, Essjay’s real credentials shouldn’t matter at all, since the community is supposed to judge you on what you’ve done for the site and what sources you can dig up, not what you’ve done (or not) for academia. So the problem was more that it was inappropriate for Essay to boast credentials at all. Whenever he used his fake credentials as a means of winning arguments or swaying opinions, whether in the community or in his short-lived role as press contact, he hurt the project in the long run.

Obviously, faking credentials is immoral and unethical. However, if he had left his “degrees” at his user page and never brought them out in a factual discussion, it might’ve just been viewed as someone’s fancy, and no one would’ve cared. (Except of course the vandals, whom he says he was trying to hide his real identity from.) Similarly, it’s one thing to don a police officer’s uniform at a costume party, but quite another to lure a child into your car using your unauthorized uniform and badge, even though both are acts of impersonation.

Though I’m not entirely certain about some of this story’s details – neither is anyone else, apparently – Essjay should’ve come clean about his identity or at least removed the claims to professorship when he assumed an official position. (In this case, I regard an official position as one that is either paid or which represents Wikipedia in the outside world.) Given, doing so is only damage control, as it doesn’t negate the problem with having claimed these credentials in the first place, but at least Essay could say that he voluntarily revealed himself before someone forced him to. To some extent, he did, but he still held onto the notion that he could protect his identity from vandals by using a fake identity while holding an official position. You can’t have your cake, eat it, and then look like you’re starving. Hm, bad analogy.

I can tell you that, at least at the Vietnamese Wikipedia, someone trying to win an argument based on their credentials is probably going to be ignored. Maybe that’s because its (unofficial) press contact is an undergrad, and merely saying you’re a coterm is enough to one-up him. :^)

Entry №1100, posted by Minh Nguyễn at 12:04 PM | Edit | Permalink
Categories: Wikipedia | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Up-front values: At least Conservapedia makes no attempt at hiding its colors. (Based on Wikipedia logo under fair use for non-profit commentary.)

A new free, online, collaboratively-written encyclopedia – sound familiar? – claims that Democrats have “a true agenda of cowering to terrorism [and] treasonous anti-Americanism”. At least it did last Sunday.

Conservapedia describes itself as an answer to the “increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American” Wikipedia. You’ll notice that its front page features a red, white, and blue color scheme. Guided by six commandments – “I give you ten – six, six commandments!” – the project takes hard-line stances on pressing issues like the use of BC and AD (as opposed to BCE and CE) and American English (as opposed to the Commonwealth varieties). Wikipedia has more of a “status quo” guideline, suggesting the use of whatever is already being used or whatever makes sense for the topic.

The project’s description of Democrats is somewhat less provocative now, framing cowardice and anti-Americanism as claims by “right-wing critics”. Wikipedia would advise against the use of such “weasel words” unless “accompanied by a citation that supports the claim”. Well, at least there are citations. Conservapedia backs up its claim of “cowering to terrorism” with a link to an Associated Press article about opposition to the TSA’s passenger databases:

For four years, the government has used a computerized system to give a risk assessment to nearly everyone entering or leaving the country by land, sea or air. Homeland Security intends to keep the files for 40 years.

Leahy is also outraged that people on the list have no way of knowing they’re on it, can’t see the information, and can’t challenge it. Leahy said there need to be privacy safeguards in place.

Its claim of “treasonous anti-Americanism” cites a CNN transcript about the party’s opposition to tax cuts. Nowhere in either of these articles are cowardice or treason mentioned, much less alleged; these articles are used merely as “examples”. At least they recognize the legitimacy of CNN.

My hope is that Conservapedia will remain nothing more than a novelty. There’s no problem with creating a fork of Wikipedia, but you can’t eliminate bias by promoting the opposite bias. That just gets you two equally biased, equally wrong, and equally disgusted camps. Calling themselves an “encyclopedia you can trust”, the project’s creators believe they’re doing students a favor, by educating them. But if a part of that service consists of convincing a student that China’s One-Child Policy is fundamentally Communist support of abortion, what they’re doing is a travesty.

Thanks to Neil Turner, who got the scoop from The Guardian.

Entry №1099, posted by Minh Nguyễn at 5:20 PM | Edit | Permalink
Categories: Gems, Politics, Wikipedia | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)