[WikiEN-l] Self-sensorship, how far should it go?

[jayjg]

On 8/1/07, Michael Noda <michael.noda at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/1/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/1/07, John Lee <johnleemk at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'll second everything Bryan says. I don't agree that Jay, ElinorD, et al,
> > > ought to take a wikibreak, but we do need to take a step back and chill out.
> >
> > Huh? What does this have to do with me? I thought Andrew was
> > suggesting the people who insist on discussing this on the list and on
> > Wikipedia should take a break.
>
> On 8/1/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/1/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 01/08/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't see any good coming from giving into trolls and stalkers. The
> > > > fact that a bunch of disgruntled, mostly banned ex-Wikipedians like to
> > > > spin conspiracy theories, and occasionally disrupt Wikipedia, should
> > > > simply be ignored. Not discussed on Wikipedia, not discussed here,
> > > > just ignored.
> > >
> > > "Ignored" is one thing. "Silenced" just feeds the fire.
> > >
> > > I note this thread began because a debate about Slim's identity, and
> > > the massive efforts gone to to conceal edits associated with her, *was
> > > on the front page of slashdot*. (Slashdot. Not Wikipedia Review, or
> > > Encyclopedia Dramatica, or anyone else; Slashdot, perhaps a classic
> > > example of our "natural supporters".) This led to a large amount of
> > > curiosity amongst our community. But a small group of people cracked
> > > down heavily on anyone trying to say "what the fuck is going on here?"
> > > on the wiki... which just further encouraged speculation about those
> > > efforts to conceal something.
> > >
> > > If you honestly don't see that this sort of behaviour is wasteful,
> > > counterproductive, inflammatory and - in the long run - just poisoning
> > > our reputation, then I am afraid my complaints are hopeless. But, by
> > > god, they were worth making.
> > >
> > > At some point in the past, people fucked up, made enemies or handled
> > > something badly or just been unlucky in who they dealt with. Things
> > > have moved on, and developed, and we're now in a situation where they
> > > have no choice but to look foolish, or keep harming the project. The
> > > only reasonable solution here is for them to stop and walk away.
> > > Sooner or later, they have to realise this.
> > >
> > > I will say it again - the people we are looking bad to now aren't the
> > > people who already thought the worst of us. We're now beginning to
> > > look like incompetent spiteful twerps to neutral third parties, and I
> > > see no indication it's ever going to improve. Essjay got us faintly
> > > amused newspaper coverage - what will "Wikipedia Covers Up Unknown
> > > Misdemeanours" look like?
> > >
> > > The project is bigger than them, it is more important than a username,
> > > and I will not stand by to see it dragged down to protect their pride.
> >
> > Frankly, I don't really know what you're talking about any more,
> > Andrew. The people who look bad are those promoting this nonsense, and
> > those who insist on continually re-hashing it on Wikipedia and the
> > mailing list. Enough navel-gazing; go build an encyclopedia.
>
> Jay, the "who, me?" attitude you are taking is getting tiresome.  Do
> you really not realize the damage you have done to your own
> reputation, and the project's?

Huh? What are you talking about?