> On the contrary, it is a safe assumption that someone who is careless
> about grammar and spelling is also careless about factual accuracy.
Nope, I don't agree with that. I know several persons at the university who write excellent papers with a spelling and grammar (in their native tounge even!) that makes me wonder how they got through elementary school. But I do dislike carelessness about grammar and spelling nonetheless.
[[User:Leonard Vertighel]]
____________________________________________________
Aufnehmen, abschicken, nah sein - So einfach ist
WEB.DE Video-Mail: http://freemail.web.de/?mc=021200
Personal remarks are out of place on this mailing list. Please consider
whether statements like the following are of any value to our purpose of
improving the Wikipedia:
* I didn't appreciate your trolling
* I would reccomend that you simply unsubscribe from the mailing list
* You should take a course in Wiki etiquette
Ed Poor
English Wikipedia Mailing List Administrator
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
> This brings up a question that I'd like answered: Given that Wikipedia
> is *not* a public forum, can it or its owner be sued for libel?
>
> What happens, for example, if an anonymous user with a determined
> attitude insists on posting something claiming that Michael Moore is a
> pedophile? Since the anonymous user's identity can't be traced,
> Moore's only recourse would be to sue the MediaWiki foundation. And
> even if the user is banned, he could come back forever and keep
> posting the claim on different articles under different sock-puppet IDs.
>
> Doesn't this put Wikipedia in the difficult position of being legally
> responsible for behavior that it doesn't have the power to control?
First of all, it's not necessarily impossible to trace the source of the
information, whether this hypothetical libeller has a username or is
editing as an IP. In a court case, the Wikimedia Foundation might be
required to disclose information to assist in the tracing process. That
sounds more likely to me than being sued directly. Of course, there
would be costs to being involved in a lawsuit, even if we're not being
asked to pay damages.
Since we can't control the behavior, the appropriate way for an injured
party to handle this would be to complain to the Foundation and ask it
to remove the libel (including possibly removing it from the page
history entirely). This is similar to the procedure expected for
copyright violations. I don't see how a sensible court could find the
Foundation at fault unless it continued to publish the libel after a
complaint had been made.
--Michael Snow
Mark Richards wrote:
>Well, I didn't appreciate your trolling on my talk
>page, if that's what you are refering to, in general
>though, I do love the ability of talk and user pages
>to represent a diverse range of views. If you want to
>call that trolling, then fine, but it's not a very
>useful definition.
>Mark
>
>--- Rick <giantsrick13 at yahoo.com <http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>> wrote:
>> This from Mister "I love trolls."
>>
>> RickK
>
I originally thought this subject heading meant that the posts were
_about_ abusive email, not that they _contained_ abusive email. Could
people be so kind as to conduct their personal disputes by private
email? Wikiquette applies on the mailing lists, just like on the wiki
itself.
I haven't checked who does or does not have email delivery enabled
through Wikipedia, but the email addresses of everyone in this little
squabble have been made available through the messages on this list. So
people should be perfectly capable of sending and receiving their
abusive emails without bothering everyone else.
--Michael Snow
I tried to edit an article on Wikipedia today, but I found
that my IP had been blocked due to the actions of an
anonymous user:
> The reason given is this: 24-hour block for blanking
> user page of user who submitted page to VfD, and then
> repeating this behavior from multiple IP addresses
> You can email The Anome
</wiki/Special:Emailuser/The_Anome>
> or one of the other administrators to discuss the block.
Ok. Someone was bad, and they got blocked. Here's the
problem. The Anome aparently has no e-mail address set up!
When I go to The Anome's User page to e-mail him, I get
this response:
> "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address,
> or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users"
Kind of ironic, since the message says that e-mail should
be sent to him! :)
> If you believe that our blocking policy was violated,
> you may discuss the block publicly on the WikiEN-L
> mailing list
I don't have a problem with the blocking of this IP; if
that kind of problem appeared, then a 24 block is fine. The
policy is good; The problem is that some other contributors
(like me) can't edit, and we can't e-mail the Anome as we
are told to. So this is a situation that someone should
know about. (And many people in my city use my ISP, so many
people are potentially blocked.)
> Your IP address is 209.247.222.84. Please include this
> address in any queries you make.
Done. Any suggestions?
Could we come up with a way of people with known Wikipedia
accounts getting around such blocks? Or is such a solution
already extant?
Thanks for your time,
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Wikipedia is not a public forum. It's not a place for people to come and
exchange views. The Internet already has such a place: it's called
Usenet, or "newsgroups".
Wikipedia is a project to create freely editable encyclopedia articles.
Unlike a forum, Wikipedia has strict rules of etiquette. Whereas it's
perfectly acceptable in forums to impugn the character of other
participants, Wikipedia has a "no personal attacks" policy.
Unlike a forum, Wikipedia has no interest in determining the "winner" of
a debate. So it doesn't matter who's cleverest, loudest, or keeps at it
the longest. What goes and what stays is determined only by (a) accuracy
and (b) NPOV.
Unlike a forum, Wikipedia produces an ever-increasing body of work,
which is organized for the benefit of the public.
I could go on, but I hope you get the point.
Uncle Ed
Michael Snow wrote:
>The law in some states, notably California, protects a certain amount of
>free speech on some private property, specifically the ability to
>petition or solicit individuals in shopping centers that are open to the
>general public. Maybe this is what gave Chris the idea that Wikipedia is
>a public forum. But even if this principle applied to speech on
>Wikipedia, I highly doubt it would cover anything resembling hate-speech.
This brings up a question that I'd like answered: Given that
Wikipedia is *not* a public forum, can it or its owner be sued for
libel?
What happens, for example, if an anonymous user with a determined
attitude insists on posting something claiming that Michael Moore is
a pedophile? Since the anonymous user's identity can't be traced,
Moore's only recourse would be to sue the MediaWiki foundation. And
even if the user is banned, he could come back forever and keep
posting the claim on different articles under different sock-puppet
IDs.
Doesn't this put Wikipedia in the difficult position of being legally
responsible for behavior that it doesn't have the power to control?
--
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
| Weapons of Mass Deception
| Banana Republicans
--------------------------------