On Nov 27, 2007 4:31 PM, Relata Refero <refero.relata(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 28, 2007 1:34 AM, jayjg
<jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Are you suggesting that, like bigfoot,
the claims that Wikipedians
> > have been harassed by WR members are mythical?
> >
>
> Jay, read the thread, and the workshop on RfAr. 'Believing in Bigfoot' here
> and there doesn't mean 'believing in harassment', it means
'believing that a
> dozen banned users will be successful in subverting the entire project
> because of their brilliance and the fact that most editors do not believe in
> constant vigilance.'
Who believes that?
Why reduce it to personalities? If I quote Guy to you from earlier,
will it make you any happier?
Yes. And more importantly, it will help cut through some of the vague
hand-waving rhetoric.
Try and resolve the problem, Jay.
I am. One big problem on this thread are accusations without any
specifics. I'm asking for specifics.
I pointed out that if Durova says she got
enthusiastic
support following her circulation of the evidence, and Matthew and Guy say
there was no support for a block, or even a proposal on Wikia, the only way
to reconcile those statements is to assume some other form of contact.
Of course that isn't the only way to reconcile those statements. I can
think of at least four other ways of reconciling them.
Do share them. It might help us.
Oh, gosh, lesse; is it possible, just possible, that any of the people
who have commented might have said something in error? That they might
believe (or have believed) something to be true, but were wrong? GASP!
And
the only thing Wikipedia can do about it is to say that it is a bad thing to
not run your ideas by genuine examination, from people who have different
perspectives from you. I am yet to see anyone on this thread arguing for
that.
Why would you imagine people on the list *didn't* have different
perspectives than Durova? You don't even know who is on it.
Do they, Jay?
Well, again, let's do a little thought experiment. If what I've read
is correct, there are apparently over two dozen people on the list.
They undoubtedly are of all different ages and nationalities and
ethnicities, have different political, religious views, life
experiences etc. than Durova. Hmm, so would they have different
perspectives than Durova or not?
You don't think discussing ways of identifying
"them" on
a list set up precisely because of what "they" have done is sharing
things with people who have a different view of the problem?
The list was set up to deal with cyberstalking; it seems extremely
unlikely to me that everyone on the list has been cyberstalked by the
same individuals, or had the same experiences when they were stalked.
Jay, nobody objected to her conclusions in the email
she sent. That is
worrying enough.
Can I assume, then, that you take responsibility for and support all
content on wikien-l that you don't explicitly object to?
Do you think that that email, sent to wikien-l, would have been
allowed to pass unmentioned?
I've seen some pretty outrageous stuff on wikien-l; in any event,
there are obviously far more eyes on wikien-l than the people on this
other list. A number of people have stated publicly that they didn't
read the e-mail, or merely glanced at it without looking at the
detail. Is that now some sort of moral failing on their part?
Um, why then are people like Alec insisting that
they must known the
names of the individuals who "approved" !!'s blocking? And what
"processes" are you talking about?
The processes involved in reviewing blocks. The processes involved in
analysing information before those blocks are made.
Um, Matthew and Guy said the exact opposite, that Durova didn't
propose a block. As far as I can tell these are imaginary "processes".
Imaginary processes don't need fixing.