Are they doing it on purpose on the Tel Aviv,
Jerusalem and other pages, just to give credit to 172
thesis ?
Anthere
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Now that the server upgrades are complete and
wikimedia.org is up, should we send out Wikimedia's
first press release?
LDan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
>Stevertigo wrote:
>> Well for starters, how about if you, Jimbo. and you,
>> Ed, don't pamper and coddle people "like" him.
>
>Be careful, Stevertigo, that sword cuts in both directions.
>
>--Jimbo
If I repeat my offer from last year, will Steve or anyone else accept
it?
Make me a "lieutenant" or "sheriff" or "nursery school teacher",
and I will liberally apply "time-out" to anyone who breaks a
rule.
I'll use something like Andrew's graded system of
"consequences":
1. A friendly explanation or reminder.
2. A warning.
3. A unilateral temporary ban (length: anywhere from, say, 3 to
24 hours)
4. An indefinite ban (to be resolved on the mailing list and/or
by appeal to our Captain or Head Marshall, Jimbo Wales)
I keep proposing this every 6 months or so, but people keep
objecting that it will erode our freedom. Well, have you ever counted
the number of writers who LEAVE Wikipedia because they have NO FREEDOM
freedom to contribute in peace here?
I say we ought to try it out: say, for a 6-weeks trial period.
If it works, let's keep doing it. If it works but needs
refinement, let's tweak it. It if it doesn't work, let's stop
it.
But anything's better than having several dozen edit wars
simmering at a low boil, ready to erupt like volcanoes at a
moment's notice.
I say, let's give it a try.
Ed Poor
> From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com>
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 7:30 AM
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Two-edged Sword
> I'll use something like Andrew's graded system of
> "consequences":
>
> 1. A friendly explanation or reminder.
> 2. A warning.
> 3. A unilateral temporary ban (length: anywhere
> from, say, 3 to
> 24 hours)
> 4. An indefinite ban (to be resolved on the mailing
> list and/or
> by appeal to our Captain or Head Marshall, Jimbo
> Wales)
>
> I keep proposing this every 6 months or so, but
> people keep
> objecting that it will erode our freedom. Well, have
> you ever counted
> the number of writers who LEAVE Wikipedia because
> they have NO FREEDOM
> freedom to contribute in peace here?
>
> I say we ought to try it out: say, for a 6-weeks
> trial period.
>
> If it works, let's keep doing it. If it works but
> needs
> refinement, let's tweak it. It if it doesn't work,
> let's stop
> it.
>
> But anything's better than having several dozen edit
> wars
> simmering at a low boil, ready to erupt like
> volcanoes at a
> moment's notice.
>
> I say, let's give it a try.
>
> Ed Poor
Ed, I *love* it when you change your mind.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Abe,
You appear to be re-posting a couple of your long messages, repeatedly.
Do you need help with formatting or something?
We don't usually send the exact same message to the list multiple
times...
Ed Poor
Wikien-l list administrator
I thank Ray Saintonge for reading - and rereading - my lengthy comments,
despite the lack of copyediting for typos, and the formatting problems that
I can't seem to figure out (I've only been having trouble with the margins
on the Wiki mailing list). Although he understood all my points, the
assumptions of his counter-arguments are unrealistic.
His comments, however, highlight my need to further explain why there's no
way that removing RK would do anything to bring the Israel-related articles
under the influence of the idealized set of contributors whom Stan had
described.
First, consider the central cause of all flame wars. It's important to note
that by and large, the more controversial an article gets on Wikipedia, the
more partisan the core group of contributors becomes (e.g., the Roman
Catholic sex abuse scandal, abortion, and Communism - just to name some
recent and never ending flame wars). This is an iron-clad relationship that
few who contribute even scantly to Wiki articles on history and politics can
deny. I acknowledge that other flame wars are far less prolonged and
vicious. While patterns of more manageable disputes over parallel the ones
over Israeli-Palestinian neutrality, the others are less prone to zero-sum
games (see the Wiki article on game theory if this terms unfamiliar btw,
sorry for habitual jargon of the social sciences). They usually far less
emotionally charged, and/or the structure of the antagonists is not
polarized.
I acknowledge that polarized factions is not unique to the Israel-related
articles. There is polarizing left-versus-right political squabbling all the
time on many articles, but the stakes are not as great personally to users.
Disputes are channeled toward something narrowed (such as a particular
policy), rather than an 'us versus them' struggle. For example, consider the
recent disputes over privatization, which Ive been mediating. Lir and
Daniel Quinlan hold irreconcilable views on the subject: one brings in an
anti-government dogma, the other an anti-capitalist one. But there was no
personal animosity expressed on the talk page (they didnt even cross paths
just channeling their mixed feeling though me on the talk page).
Jews worldwide, however, are haunted by the past and ever-vigilant when
criticism of Israel might be imbued with anti-Semitism. Conversely,
Palestinians have suffered declining living standards in the context of
Israeli heavy-handedness, displacement, and marginalization in their
homeland and in any setting of any refugee camp. These two collective
identities are not irrational or insane when individual channel those
frustrations toward hating the enemy; and we should expert their champions
outside the Middle East to quarrel in every forum in which they are both
present at the same time.
On other controversial articles, emotionalism can run high too, but the
structure of the disputes is rarely so polarizing. For example, there is
often conflict over a minority view that challenges an analysis, the
balance, and/or the tone of a Wiki article. However, you dont inherently
attract two equally-large group with fixed identities pitted against each
other.
Among the conflict-prone articles on Wikipedia, perhaps only abortion
attracts the same level of polarization and bitterness as the Israel-related
articles. But this is largely a single article, along with a handful of
others that go along with it, not close to receiving the level of attention
garnered by the hundreds of articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian
disputes.
Within the freedom of Wikipedia (which opens the doors to partisans), the
fanacticism and polarization of the two sides on the Palestinian question,
the partisans can gravitate toward the zero-sum conflict demanded by their
fanatical and often quite understandable considering where they are both
coming from - worldviews. Thus, we'd have almost daily Mid East flame wars
regardless of whether or not RK's around.
Yes, theoretically RK would be less "effective in presenting [his] view[s]
than a large number of moderates." But the moderates are always going to
be marginalized - with or without RK: the large share of extremists on both
sides will always make more noise than the "silent majority" (not that I
like to borrow Richard Nixon's '68 campaign slogans). A new RK can arrive
any day. Even worse, since the majority of the core contributors are also
partisans, RK's absence would just shatter the workable balance of power
between the opposing forces. Yes, we would like to have a scholarly,
congenial lot rather than what we have, but were to going to get it. And
yes, Stan and Ray are correct that the flame wars have driven off a number
of users; but this was the only likely outcome anyway.
In that regard, I do admit that Ray has good reasons to express concerns
over my "[endorsement] of bully tactics and intimidation." I firmly agree as
much as anyone with Ray that "failing to confront these people does not make
the world better or safer." RK must always be prodded to ensure that hes
reasonably acing in line, but not so constrained that RK cant be RK. That's
been the status quo for over a year, and it's been working.
However, we should consider lax enforcement policy in light of this context
- with the caveat that RK is reprimanded promptly each time (and with so
many enemies, hes under enough scrutiny). The Israeli-Palestinian articles
should be regarded as an exception, calling for a measured enforcement of
Wiki policy (and every institution doesnt enforce all laws and guidelines
to the letter just consider all the arcane, non-enforced laws on the books
right now everywhere). There should be a tacit, unstated understanding that
the habits and customs among their core group of Israel-related contributors
are going to be more a function of the emotionalism and fervency of the
real-world Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and not the conventions of
Wikipedia as a whole. However, Im not saying that RK deserves preferential
treatment. Just dont ban him, and lets to more to acknowledge that hes a
indispensable pillar of the Wiki community.
I'd also point out in closing that the ideals of the Wikipedia project would
favor my laissez-faire, less elitist, and more freedom-oriented approach to
this matter. Little heavy handed intervention from the top (by developers
such as Erik), combined with the free-for-all squabbling from below, has
been working. Impartial experts need not dominate the Israeli-Palestinian
articles (which would be Stans elitist ideal) because the struggle and
fervency among all the partisans winds up forging good, neutral articles
after a lot of noise has been made. The problem with little expertise and a
lot of opinion is rectified, not caused, by stalemated edit wars among the
partisans - right now we have a lot of horrible articles that could use some
antagonism to whip them into shape. RK and his edit wars are part of the
solution, not the problem.
_________________________________________________________________
Frustrated with dial-up? Get high-speed for as low as $29.95/month
(depending on the local service providers in your area).
https://broadband.msn.com
> From: Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren(a)yahoo.com>
> Wikipedia's goal is to make an encyclopedia, not a judicial system. Any
> big debates that are not solved by mediation could just go on village
> pump .. or, if it's really hard to resolve, the mailing list. A private
> messaging system would be useful .. but more than that would be too
> much.
You've managed to make me produce a wry smile! I sympathize sincerely with
your desire for a lack of bureacracy, but, alas, more structure and
procedures are the inevitable price you have to pay for success and its
Siamese twin, growth in size. (This is a process I lived though, painfully,
as the Internet and IETF grew from a handful of people.)
There's no avoiding it - all you can do is try and manage it so that it
happens in the least objectionable way. And you can't do that if you try and
stop it from happening...
People seem to be generally agreeable to the concept that we need a fairly
well-specified hierarchy of chastisements (or behaviour-modification tools,
whatever).
Equally, we need a *matching* hierarchy of entities to hand out those
chastisements - because the further up the hierarchy of chastisements you go,
the more serious they become, so they should be applied more carefully. That
generally means a larger circle of review, to make sure an error isn't being
made.
I really don't think VP, or the mailing list, should get involved except as a
last desperate resort. Those are very expensive resources, since they take
the time of everyone in the community. Use of such things simply won't scale
as the community grows larger.
(Now there would be a very interesting number to report, along with the
number of articles: the number of user-id's, or if you want to be picky, the
number who've done something in the last 60 days, to filter out the ones who
are no longer active. But I digress...)
I don't know about you, but I could have done without all the email this RK
thing has generated clogging my mailbox. I'd much rather have spent the time
working on articles...
Noel
Erik wrote with his usual eloquence:
> I support you as part of a committee, but not as a lone ranger.
Thanks, Erik (Eloquence). I support you, too.
Ed "Not the Lone Ranger" Poor (Uncle Ed)
P.S. I changed my WikiVote re: RK's banning to "support temp-ban"
Ed, do you mean only in relation to logged-in users?
Or are you proposing changes to the blocking of
anonymous IPs as well? If only the former, I support
the idea.
Angela.
________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk