I am talking about these two articles here:
Secret mailing list rocks Wikipedia
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/
Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/
I was quite surprised when I read Wikipedia's extremely casual response to the recent articles published in The Register.
There are a variety of trash "information" sites, "reviews", blogs etc.
that attack Wikipedia. There is simply no time or resources to publish
rebuttals to their nonsense.
Yours sincerely,
David Monniaux
Do you guys realize that the articles published in The Register are not mere "nonsense" (as the Wikipedia spokesperson claims), and appear quite well-researched and in-depth to the readers?
The secret mailing list article has successfully convinced most people that all 1000 Wikipedia moderators were part of the "secret mailing list", and "the rank and file" are "on the verge of revolt". The second article (like the first one) has also made it to front-page on all the social news sites including Digg, Reddit and Slashdot. It has also convinced people that the Wikipedia moderators regularly block anybody who comes in their way. The blogs and forums are abuzz with the allegations of corruption rampant among Wikipedia moderators.
Wikipedia relies on public trust and donations. Wikipedia's refusal to respond to such serious allegatinons, and instead launch an ad-hominem attack on The Register by calling their articles "nonsense" reflects very badly on the site, esp. when others have praised The Register for its in-depth journalism. CNET has praised the article for proving that "the journalism still alive":
http://www.cnet.com/8301-13846_1-9831164-62.html
Wikipedia should take The Register allegations seriously, and respond seriously.
Best Regards,
Dan
On 12/5/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> What's boring are continuing snide insinuations. Why [doesn't]
> anyone else who insists that the Cyberstalking list was used to
> co-ordinate !!'s block say straight out that they think Matt and Guy
> and Slim are lying, if that's what they think, rather than using
> weaselly innuendo to try to press their point?
I know this horse is sorta dead, but since peopel are still engaging
in the post-mortem, I thought I should chime in.
First of all, Matt and Guy and Slim can't lie about something they
can't possibly have known. The truth is, they have no clue whether
the list was used to coordiante or not. Durova posted to the list
about !! to the list-- what responses she got back through email,
only Durova and her sleuths know. People can say "I didn't see any
full-formed coordination", but they can't actually know there was no
such coordination.
Secondly, there's no need to fixate just on the !! issue. The list
had been running long before !!, and it was "high volume". It
certainly seems that the Cyberstalking and the Investigations lists
existed to cooridinate SOMETHING. What exactly were they
coordinating, who knws-- but it's obvious people on it were talking
about wikipedia, they weren't swapping recipes, running a support
group, or investigating the disappearance of Amelia Earhart.
Precisely which specfic incidents were discussed and were
coordidnated-- that we can't say. Was that coordnation improper?
That we cannot answer.
But obviously, there was some sort of coordination, and there was SOME
reason that even the mere EXISTENCE of the lists were being kept
secret-- rather than just keeping hte contents of the list private.
What could they have been coordinating? Who knows.
* !!'s block was one obvious candidate, because we know Durova sent
out a "inviation to coordination" on the list. But t enough people
have come forward to claim Durova's post was just an invitation to
coordiation, and if an future coordination occurred (as Durova claims
it did), that coordination took place off list.
* Miltopias block was almost certainly coordinated on the list--
Durova strongly implies it, and in fact Durova seems to practically
gloat that the coordination over that went undiscovered.
* DanT has speculated that the pro-BADSITES group coordinated the
edit wars at WP:NPA and Robert Black and Judd Bagley there, but I
don't think he claims to know that it was coordinated, or if he just
suspects it.
* I got an anonymous 'leak' some someone who was supposedly on the
list who claims that the list was use to coordinate an edit-war at
Wikipedia:Sock puppetry that occurred in November-- I personally have
no way of knowing if that's true or not.
----
If some of these speculations turn out to be false, it's regretable,
but inevitable.
This is the risk you take when you run "lists that THEY don't know
exist" --- when THEY (the community) finally do find out you've been
running such lists, THEY are going to assume there's a reason THEY
weren't allowed to about the existence of the lists.
"We just wanted a private place to share our feelings" isn't going to
assauge the community's fear that the list was used to coordinate
something, somewhere, somehow.
Whether that coordination is improper or broke the rules, who can say.
That's another er risk of secret/private lists-- whatever evidence
the participants have that might be used in their defense, they've
elected to keep that evidence "secret"-- which only contributes to
suspicion that something was rotten in Denmark.
If it's all one big misunderstanding, if the lists really weren't used
for anything inappropriate ever, I'd suggest making the archives as
public as possible, redacting on only the truly private info-- the
easiest way to show people you've got nothing to hide is to stop
hiding stuff.
Alec
To my mind, this dialog has become rather unfortunately overly polarised.
It's probably not as hard as we think to find common ground, which would
certainly be for the good.
My main concern in all this (which I think is echoed elsewhere clearly and
loudly) is that people have been taking 'on-wiki' actions without the
appropriate level of 'on-wiki' discussion. I think we would all agree that a
group (say 4 or 5) of 'senior' editors forming opinions privately, and then
each taking action in the matter at hand at the very least is behaviour
which probably requires great care to avoid becoming problematic.
.....and a small extra - in my view it also really helps to think about the
good faith reasoning behind the posts on all sides, there's a little too
much of the 'old school' 'anything goes' repartee of usenet past in some of
these discussions. I guess what I mean by that is that a sensible, nuanced
(diplomatic?) discussion isn't helped by incredulity on anyone's part,
feigned or otherwise. If you are genuinely incredulous, I'd recommend the
advice given previously - take a walk, calm down, and have a think before
you post - "what the heck are you on about? I have no idea what you're
talking about!" is part of the problem.
to my mind, almost all of these apply in some way;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Brandeis#Selected_quotations
PM.
ps. many thanks for allowing this post onto the list.
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 11:18:42 -0800, "George Herbert"
<george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Cade is clearly looking for and finding controversy. The Register thrives
> on that. The reality is rather different. Rendering aid and comfort to
> people who behave sociopathically online is not in the best interests of the
> project.
However, it's a logical fallacy to go from there to where several
admins seem to be on various related articles lately (e.g., [[Gary
Weiss]]), where they're dismissing all concerns that are in any way
related to those mentioned in that article, even when brought up by
perfectly rational, non-sociopathic, non-banned editors.
If mapped out in outline, the line of argument seems to go:
1) Bagley claims that [list various claims of his, such as that the
Weiss article is non-NPOV]
2) Bagley is a sociopathic, evil harasser.
3) Therefore, the claims in (1) are all false.
4) Thus, anybody who repeats the claims should be dismissed out of
hand.
This does not follow logically.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
[Moderators: if you don't wish to forward this post, I'll understand.
If you do, thanks in advance. --Larry Sanger]
All,
I saw this unfortunate article
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/
and I felt inspired to reach out to the Wikipedia community and invite
those of you who are seriously disaffected to give the Citizendium
(http://www.citizendium.org/) another look. In case you took seriously
a certain article about us in the Wikipedia Signpost last summer, let's
just say that wishful reports of our demise were greatly exaggerated.
Since then, we've nearly doubled our number of articles and our
activity; our growth has been accerating, and recently, we've had a
great growth spurt. Obviously, we're still small, but we've got an
excellent opportunity to replicate Wikipedia-style growth.
I've never actually extended an invitation to Wikipedians before. I've
always felt that Wikipedia and the Citizendium naturally attract
different constituencies, and that that's a positive thing. I have
never wanted to appear to be competing with Wikipedia for people. I
just didn't think that's necessary--and I still don't.
But, especially to those people who are seriously disappointed with the
management of the Wikipedia community, I feel it's appropriate and
important that I say: we all (humanity) might be able to do better than
the Wikipedia model of production and governance. Maybe, for some of
you, it's time to explore the Citizendium model.
I know I'm going to make a lot of people angry or disappointed by my
saying this here, in the lion's den, so to speak. (Does it help that I
started this list? I doubt it. :-) ) I'm sure there will be no
shortage of hostile response. But bear in mind, I am reaching out only
to people who are seriously disappointed with Wikipedia or its
management. I think this is within the properly critical spirit of the
open source/free culture movement. After all, I am *not* trying to
undermine Wikipedia, which I hope will always exist as a popular source
of information. (I've always said that.) I'm merely trying to build
*another* source of information. I hope that those who are
contemplating exiting Wikipedia will consider joining the Citizendium.
If you want to know how (we think) we're different, see this page:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:We_aren't_Wikipedia
The present "scandal" is over the community and governance. So what's
special or interesting about the Citizendium community and governance?
Here's a summary.
The community as a whole is by and large a mature and pleasant place to
work. But it's still an open wiki.
We are ramping up an open, online representative republic. (We're still
drafting our rules!) Among other things, this means we've got an
Editorial Council (a "legislative"), a Constabulary (a "police force"),
an Executive Committee (an "executive"), and we will soon be adding an
independent judiciary. These community components are rule-governed and
being established with the well-known challenges of Wikipedia's
community in mind.
We take "the rule of law" seriously. "Ignore all rules," which I
originally proposed for Wikipedia as a sort of joke back in the spring
of 2001, isn't recommended. Boldness and not caring too much if you
make beginner mistakes are strongly recommended. (But that was the
original spirit of "ignore all rules," in case you didn't know.)
We require that contributors agree with a Statement of Fundamental
Policies. (And, soon, a Citizendium Charter.) No endless arguing about
our fundamental policies: we are all committed to them up front. We
still argue about stuff that really matters. We take the notion of
"cyber-citizenship" seriously.
We require real names. We actually check that there is someone with a
particular (real) name and we try to match this name up with an e-mail
address. Our methods of doing this are very fallible, but so far they
seem to have worked just fine. So sockpuppetry, while in principle
still possible, becomes much, much more difficult. (I'm not aware of
our having any sockpuppet contributors on CZ.)
On the issue in question--should there be a "secret cabal" of people to
deal with sockpuppets?--well, it's interesting. On the one hand, we
don't have a sockpuppet problem to speak of, because we require real
names. On the other hand, we do have a "Constabulary," and occasionally
they deal with difficult cases, and indeed privately, but the constables
are bound by certain rules. Among the rules are the right to appeal to
a fully independent body. For example, recently one editor (a very kind
University of Edinburgh professor who served in the same appeal function
that we'll soon formalize with the Judicial Board) "heard" an appeal and
reversed my decision to ban someone. This is fine with me and I am glad
to be able to demonstrate that I do *not* have the final say. No single
individual should, in a republic.
The notion of a *secret* body that actually has authority to determine
cases is, needless to say, anathema in a project committed to the rule
of law. But, just as with closed police records, closed access is
sometimes necessary to protect contributor privacy and interests, and to
avoid libel issues needlessly. If a person wishes us to make our
deliberations public, we will. We regard it as their *right* as a
citizen. This guarantee of rights, however, would be rather more
problematic if we weren't using real names.
In terms of management, to set a positive precedent, I plan to step down
as editor-in-chief and hand over the reins to someone else--within the
next year or two at most. This will require that I do fundraising to
pay this person's salary, because I myself have been living strictly
from writing, speaking, and consulting fees. I will at that time no
longer play *any* role, formal or informal, in the governance of the
Citizendium encyclopedia project. (I will try to behave like the
traditional disinterested U.S. ex-president.) It just seems obvious to
me that the leader of an allegedly democratic project should actually
*step aside* when he's handed over the reins of power.
Finally, we have a role for experts (only they are called our
"editors"), who can approve articles and make content decisions where
necessary, but who otherwise work shoulder-to-shoulder with everyone.
In fact, anyone can join (as an "author") and contribute, as long as
they are 13 or older, write good English and otherwise make a positive
contribution, agree with our fundamental principles, and help us
establish that the name/identity they claim is their own real name.
If you are motivated to try something different, join here:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:RequestAccount
Coincidentally, tomorrow (Wednesday) is a good day to join. It's our
monthly Write-a-Thon (details linked from the front page).
By the way, I'm sorry to those who have been waiting, but I hope to
announce our license before *too* much longer. The announcement will be
accompanied by a very long essay, which I haven't finished yet. Please
don't assume the license will be incompatible with Wikipedia's...there's
a decent chance it will be compatible.
Also, by the way, I'm going to start up SharedKnowing (a new, "neutral"
mailing list) soon. Some prominent Wikipedians are already subscribed.
Join here:
http://mail.citizendium.org/mailman/listinfo/sharedknowing#more
In conclusion, I'm hoping sincerely for the best outcome for everyone.
I hope Wikipedia can overcome its obviously difficult problems, and let
me add that I don't expect the Citizendium to be free of problems when
it's bigger, either. They'll just be different, and I hope not so
fundamental.
My best to the Wikipedia community,
Larry Sanger
Wikipedia ex-co-founder ;-)
-----
Lawrence M. Sanger, Ph.D. | http://www.larrysanger.org/
Editor-in-Chief, Citizendium | http://www.citizendium.org/
sanger(a)citizendium.org
Private Musings wrote:
On Dec 4, 2007, at 1:07 AM, wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> two journalists have contacted me to date
> concerning these events, and personally, whilst it may blow over, I
> feel
> there is a possibility of the story 'going mainstream' - our (your?)
> ability
> to react calmly, sensibly, and openly could be important - I'd
> consider it
> to be.
Funny, looks like you wrote the Slashdot.org article about it. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/04/0333252
-Swatjester
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 19:05:19 -0500, "Michael Noda"
<michael.noda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Alec, Guy, Dan, Jay... take a walk. Outside. Breathe in the cool air
> of the boreal winter. Look up at the sky and ponder the vastness of
> the universe. When you come back, try not to read e-mail for the next
> few days. Trust me, if there's anything that needs to be said,
> someone else will say it for you; the list membership is both broad
> and deep. Just start by going for a walk. Now, or as soon as you can
> bundle up (it's cold!), would be a good time.
But I'm in south Florida, where it's currently 71 degrees
(Fahrenheit).
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 6 Dec 2007 at 21:25:11 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
> But then I don't suppose you've ever had your home address and
> telephone stuck on the web, or had people call your home, or try to
> get you sacked, or stalk you.
Well, as a matter of fact, I *have* been called both at home and at
work by people pissed off at things I wrote on an online forum or on
my personal Web site, and have at times been threatened with lawsuits
or being reported to the police. None of this required any use of
"attack sites" or links thereof by the harassing parties, and no
thought of retaliatory censorship was held on my part.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/