[WikiEN-l] Meet the Metz

[John Lee]

On Dec 6, 2007 9:16 PM,  <joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu> wrote:
> Quoting Keith Old <keithold at gmail.com>:
>
> > On 12/7/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan at tobias.name> wrote:
> >>
> >> Another Cade Metz article on Wikipedia, following in the heels of the
> >> last one:
> >>
> >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> == 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/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >
> > G'day Dan,
> >
> > This article seriously mentions black helicopters in the context of
> > Wikipedia.
> >
> > If you ever took the Register seriously, it's time to reconsider your
> > opinion.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> > Keith Old
> >
> > User:Capitalistroadster
>
> I'm also concerned that Dan and others seem to be going out of there
> way to take
> Wikipedia disputes off-wiki in a way to maximize damage to the
> reputation of the
> project as a whole and Wikipedia editors who they disagree with. If we don't
> have the maturity to handle our disputes without egging on tabloids to write
> nasty things about other editors we have a serious problem.
>
> Dan, I've agreed with you on BADSITES somewhat, and I've disagreed with you
> strongly on the Durova matter but see somewhat where you are coming
> from, but I
> cannot begin to fathom what went through your mind when you took part in this
> article. I see nothing it accomplishes other than being a hit piece on fellow
> Wikipedians. We can have polite, rational disagreement without pulling
> tabloids
> into our mess. Heck, we can even have impolite disagreements. We sometimes say
> "fuck" and "shut up" to each other on the mailing list. But there is no good
> reason to get newspapers involved like this, especially crappy newspapers who
> wish to cause trouble.
>
> I hope that all editors in the future will exercise better restraint than to
> engage in this sort of immature and unproductive behavior.

Personally I wouldn't encourage the sort of irresponsible reporting El
Reg frequently engages in, and I don't approve of editors who would do
the same, but at the same time, I don't see why editors shouldn't be
free to do this. Making this verboten will only force them to become
anonymous and complicate matters further. It is irresponsible to drag
disputes off-wiki as was done here, but it will happen regardless of
what we do - that's the whole lesson of the BADSITES debacle.

(I would also take exception to the suggestion that simply answering
questions from a tabloid hostile to Wikipedia is automatically
tantamount to dragging our good name through the mud - the chair of
Wikimedia UK has responded to El Reg in the comments section, but this
doesn't mean she has somehow harmed Wikipedia simply by virtue of
participating.)

The more openness, the better, if you ask me. Sometimes it is better
for us to comment when newspapers pose questions to us. The risk of
tabloids abusing our openness is just something we have to tolerate.

Johnleemk