Lars Aronsson wrote:
Somebody with the IP address
mail11.disney.com [208.246.35.55] sent
this message in the name of "Poor, Edmund W":
And for the record: yes, it was I who created the
F****** A******
user account and vandalized several pages. I was trying to make a
point,
Was this written by the real Ed Poor? It is so stupid, that I must
assume that the SMTP header was forged. I don't want to be on a
mailing list with people this stupid. I would suggest that Ed just
pack up his things and leave the project for ever, or we should make
an investigation into who really sent that message.
It did not seem stupid or obnoxiously fatuous to me.
It appeared political and diplomatic. Further comment
below:
Ed said:
In respect to Karen and other lovers of small, soft,
or furry creatures, let us rein
in our salty language.
Interesting. Ed has voluntarily agreed to desist with
behavior that he and others find potentially damaging
to Wikipedia.
A standard which trolling regulars sometimes fail to
meet when having disagreements with others.
IMHO It is not stupid to attempt to get along with others.
Many people consider turnabout fair play. I do not find
this stupid either, but this may be rather transparently
self serving.
And for the record: yes, it was I who created the F****** A****** user account and
vandalized several pages. I was trying to make a point, i.e., that our social contract
has loopholes that can and will be exploited.
The point was effectively made. I had missed "TMC"s
previous contributions but was aware that we lack any
means of ratifying community policy, applying consistent
education and enforcement efforts, and even vary substantially
in how we inform novices and regulars alike that we think
they are in error relative to currently prevailing
community expectations (which change rapidly with the weather
and the influences of newcomers).
No lasting harm. I also have currently not invited
minors to participate here as I am not yet satisfied that
an effective, pleasant, educational environment has been
established uniformly for longer than microseconds.
So Ed's actions highlighted an existing problem by making
it a bit worse temporarily.
Stupid? Perhaps not. A flu shot lowers your resistance
to the flu temporarily to produce a more robust immune
system. Timing is everything .... well sometimes it is
something anyway.
I apologize to all for using illegitmate means to dramatize my point.
I contend this is a fallacious and erronius statement
which I now assume was made with good diplomatic intentions.
I mean it is possible I suppose that Ed stupidly made
a mistake .... it is not paranoid to assume he is sneaking
up on us again to make another point if he has already admitted
doing so once ... is it?
There is no legitimate authority on this site beyond
that fact that Mr. Wales through Bomis owns the server,
hard drive, and bandwidth we are using.
Despite Mr. Crockers allegation that I am a liar I
suspect he will confirm the approximate truthfulness of
the above statement if you ask him nicely or else
explain why it is untruthful and provide you with the
complete truth as he sees it.
If there is no legitimate authority or means of establishing
policy or procedures which it is expected legitimate actions
will fall within .... then how can there illegitimate means
of making a point? We are reduced to expediency and Ed's
actions seem to have provoked some discussion of issues
pertinent to resolving some widely percieved problems.
Personally I think the time for growth serving diplomacy
is past. We have a substantial community who has bought
into the Wikipedia concept and our current progress is
being stalled by unnecessary strife, discord, and confusion
regarding how to establish a legitimate governing authority
for our community. With clarity those who agree can contribute
in a better constrained environment and those who do not
agree can move on .... possibly prior to buying in via
uncompensated contributions to the database. Would any
consider a site designed to receive uncompensated contributions
from non citizens prior to banning them for failing to
respond to the cabal's dictates an abusively exploitive
situation?
Mr. Wales does not own me or GPL'd source code or
the FDL'd database. Thus there are limits to the influence
which can be brought to bear by appeal to the owner.
Since one of our rules is to disregard the rules nothing
Ed or "TMC" have done can be viewed as "illegitimate".
Does it follow that since we have no rules and people can
always move on that there is no way to abusively exploit
casual drop in users?
I do not find this attempted misstatement of Ed's in
support of diplomacy "stupid".
Merely ineffective at this time in the context of larger
goals implied by our Wikipedia mission.
So .... nobody attempt to use Ed's fallacious admission
of illegitimate means as a means of convincing me that
my methods are illegitimate. Better simply to allege
troll or liar until sufficient community support has
materialized for a lynching party.
Unlike TMC, I am perfectly willing to be bound by the rules that others make. I am an
absolutist -- rather than a relativist -- and I am obligated by my religious beliefs
to avoid actions which harm others for my own benefit, and to carry out actions that
benefit others (even to the point of self-sacrifice)
I require due process, appropriate symmetry, and the consent
of the governed before I am bound by self discipline by rules
others make.
I have committed to having no rules beyond peer pressure
as per the existing contradictory and confusing policy
statements and repeatedly informed (usually rudely in kind)
Larry in public (and Mr. Wales in private correspondence) that
"Larry says ..." or "Jimmy says ..." is insufficient to
dictate my behavior.
This is apparently not an uncommon situation. Prior to Larry
leaving the project in his paid capacity he was requesting from
the community the authority to enforce his decisions upon people
who ignored them. It does not appear to me that he proposed to
establish any legitimate means of deriving authority from the
consent of the governed at large (beyond a few/prevailing majority
amongst the valuable regular contributors on the mailing list and
the owner) or any due process beyond an email complaint to the
owner or the community mailing lists.
I have not yet been banned despite Mr. Wales (and Larry, and
Mr. Crocker, et. al.) expressed low opinions of me, so clearly we
currently have room for some diversity of views and opinions.
Should Mr. Wales or Bomis sell us (
Wikipedia.com or .org) to Larry
at some point in the future this may change abrubtly without notice
depending upon what the P'hds, the Board (of elite P'hds), or Larry
come up with in regard to "troll" allegation and L&L (labeling and
lynching) party policies.
Thus I will refrain from offending Karen and from frustrating Uncle Mike's desire to
use Wikipedia as a teaching tool for children. I myself long ago decided not to let my
children use Wikipedia, for the very reasons Karen and mirwin gave -- and which I
dramatized with the F.A. episode.
Let me clarify a bit: On the overall scale of things
the occasional tidbit of pornography and foul language in
inappropriate places is less important to me than the overall
tone and approach of the community.
Kids learn by example and I have no desire for the types
of uncivil behavior which routinely erupt at this site
(IMO largely because we have no legitimate means of establishing
what comprises civil behavior and then routinely curtailing or
damping violations) to damage my family and friends kids.
As citizens, we have the responsibility to teach them to be
effective citizens and how to get along in society at large.
It is my opinion that as Wikipedia is currently structured it would
only reinforce bad habits that all children must learn to put away
if they are to be productive, prosperous citizens. Indeed, it
seems to bring out some of my poorer behavior (ala usenet) and
thus I have been recently self rationing my personal exposure
somewhat. Actually, usenet might be fairly restful when I am
on sabbatical from Wikipedia .....
In conclusion: Lars, I do not find Ed's post stupid.
Rather I find it rather ingenious in a myriad of ways
from a diplomatic, political, and pedagogical standpoint.
I find your suggestion that Ed take action to please
you because you are too ignorant or uncreative in your
thought processes to find any merit in his post rather
lacking on your part. If you disagree then I suggest you either
leave to avoid stupid people like me and Mr. Ed ( poor
humor I know ... I did it again; stupid, stupid, .... this will
crack we stupids ... ahem) by leaving Wikipedia,
or undertake to educate us at your leisure.
In my stupid (ironically/sarcastically or perhaps stupidly
self alleged should go without saying but in the interests
of clarity I wasted some bandwidth here)
opinion, you may might find the undertaking
educational, even if Ed and I are fast learners. Of course,
we may need more than shouted unsubstantiated allegations
of "stupid", "troll", etc. to make readily apparent rapid
progress by your possibly exacting self defined standards.
Regards,
Mike Irwin, aka
the lying troll