The comments unearthed by Sean Barret do not represent my views, and a
careful examination of my long editing history will demonstrate that. (Given
the economic approaches in which I was inculcated for years, I probably
wouldn't even be considered a social democrat outside the U.S., let alone a
Communist!)
I did not post them, but I suppose that I wouldn't be able to prove that. Of
course, if one were to post similar comments under the names of Sean Barret
and Michael Snow, they wouldn't be able to prove that they were not the ones
making them either... It's quite distressing that users are searching for
dirt on people off Wikipedia in order to server their political or personal
agendas on Wikipedia.
-172
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Quote of the day:
"It is no defense to the 3RR that the information being reverted is false."
-User:BM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#Us…
Runner up:
"I agree that Adam Carr was reverting a completely nonsensical edit
(Australia is not yet a republic), but he still broke the 3RR."
-User:Noel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#Us…
Think of the warning signs that would alert one to the possibility of
groupthink I still believe that most active users sign up to Wikipedia with
the goal of writing an encyclopedia. But over time, their behavior is shaped
according to a whole web of relations based on the fetishization and
ritualization of the 3RR and other policies, making them lose sight of the
goal of writing an encyclopedia.
I concede that Wikipedia is no longer the small community it once was, but
rather an increasingly complex and cumbersome organization comprising
thousands of user, meaning that attention to procedure is crucial if the
project is to be manageable. The problem is not the bureaucratization of
Wikipedia in and of itself but rather how Wikipedia is being bureaucratized.
If Wikipedia is serious about its goal of creating an encyclopedia, it must
develop a conflict resolution process that bans users who make nonsensical
edits, not those who are reverting them. If it continues to follow its
present path, the only people who'll have the patience to deal with these
games will be cultists, LaRouchies, Holocaust deniers, and other random
cranks.
Larry Sanger's advice (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25)
should be taken seriously while the project is still salvageable.
-172
BTW, I have asked that my adminship be revoked in unrelated correspondences.
I have no intention of returning, regardless of this message.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
On the minus, well, in addition to what I've already written
if there are several persons in the wrong about an article and one
person in the right, then the one in the minority is severely disadvantaged
by the 3RR ruling.
----- Original Message -----
From: Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Strange fetishes
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 01:47:40 -0500
>
> Abe Sokolov wrote:
>
> > Think of the warning signs that would alert one to the
> > possibility of groupthink… I still believe that most active users
> > sign up to Wikipedia with the goal of writing an encyclopedia.
> > But over time, their behavior is shaped according to a whole web
> > of relations based on the fetishization and ritualization of the
> > 3RR and other policies, making them lose sight of the goal of
> > writing an encyclopedia.
>
> The 3RR is purposely designed as a trade-off. On the plus side,
> edit-warriors inserting nonsense cannot do so more than three times
> per day. On the minus side, users reverting nonsensical edits
> cannot revert them more than three times in a day. If we assume
> that there are more "good editors" than "bad editors", then it's a
> good tradeoff, because there will always be other people around to
> revert the nonsense editors. Policies like banning repeated
> edit-warriors through an Arbitration Committee case are intended to
> keep the number of "bad editors" down so this remains the case.
>
> (A useful analogy might be to the moral theory of rule-based utilitarianism.)
>
> -Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
_______________________________________________
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com
Peter, the Queen IS the Head of state here in Australia , though the matter is
complicated by the G-G representing her.
On another note, are you Peter Ellis? Just wondering...
Arno
----- Original Message -----
From: Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com>
To: slimvirgin(a)gmail.com, "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] 3RR applied to both parties?
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 16:51:25 +1100
>
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:37:35 -0700, slimvirgin(a)gmail.com
> <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Peter, this probably isn't the place to discuss the factual details,
> > but in brief you are doing original research. Here is the Governor
> > General's page http://www.gg.gov.au/html/fset_role.html There's
> > nothing republican about this description.
> >
> > We had a similar situation a few weeks ago when an editor kept
> > deleting that Israel is a parliamentary democracy, because that editor
> > believes that Israel is not democratic enough, and was able to quote
> > other sources making the same point. But that's beside the point:
> > Israel is recognized by reputable sources as a parliamentary
> > democracy, so that's the term Wikipedia uses; similarly, the Queen is
> > recognized as the Australian head of state by most reputable sources,
>
> But that's the point, Sarah. She isn't. You might as well say that
> she's the Queen of England. Lots of people would put money on this,
> but they would be wrong.
>
> I don't mind if incorrect popular opinion is mentioned so long as it
> is clearly labelled as such.
>
> --
> Peter in Canberra
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
_______________________________________________
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com
Abe Sokolov wrote:
> Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen at shaw.ca wrote:
>
> Actually, IMO at least it seems perfectly reasonable to enforce the 3RR
> even against people who are making reverts that when made in isolation
> would be considered "reasonable."
>
> That's actually my point. For Wikipedia to be managable, procedure
> must be followed and policies must be enforced. Thus, the statements
> that I'd quoted were **unfortunately** reasonable. The problem is the
> nature of the procedure making this approach reasonable.
>
> IMO needs radical change, along the lines of Larry Sanger's
> suggestions. The way things are now, certain trolls flourish while
> professional historians like Jtdril
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jtdirl#3RR_block) and Adam
> Carr get blocked. Some bold structural changes would serve to correct
> this problem.
Some bold individual changes by certain people in their personal editing
practices would also serve to correct this problem.
--Michael Snow
Abe Sokolov (or somebody using that name) wrote:
> The comments unearthed by Sean Barret do not represent my views, and a
> careful examination of my long editing history will demonstrate that.
> (Given the economic approaches in which I was inculcated for years, I
> probably wouldn't even be considered a social democrat outside the
> U.S., let alone a Communist!)
>
> I did not post them, but I suppose that I wouldn't be able to prove
> that. Of course, if one were to post similar comments under the names
> of Sean Barret and Michael Snow, they wouldn't be able to prove that
> they were not the ones making them either... It's quite distressing
> that users are searching for dirt on people off Wikipedia in order to
> server their political or personal agendas on Wikipedia.
Since this seems partially directed at me, I will point out that I have
not been searching for dirt on anybody. In case it wasn't clear from my
previous post, I was searching for *confirmation* of the professional
credentials 172 has periodically alluded to. This is something that
would serve to _support_ his claim to expertise in certain areas. It
should not diminish his reputation unless he has overstated his
qualifications, and I've seen no real indication of that. Statements
that 172 may or may not have posted in various forums, which may or may
not have been facetious, matter little to me.
On the other hand, if 172 wants to deny any significance to the name he
has chosen and give us no personal information, then we have no evidence
to back up his claims to expertise and might as well disregard them. As
was already noted, the divergence between trying to remain anonymous and
trying to appeal to one's credentials as an expert makes this an
impossible position to maintain.
In my observation, people do pay attention to the fact that some users
have particular professional credentials, and sensible users have shown
some deference toward that expertise. The deference is not complete, of
course, and unfortunately during disagreements some people are
aggressively disrespectful of their opponent's credentials, so an expert
will not necessarily be satisfied with the situation. But if you want
any kind of deference, whether or not you want to go all the way to the
model Larry Sanger advocates, being willing to allow evidence of your
credentials is a pretty basic requirement.
--Michael Snow
And , of course, and speaking more generally, if Party A was in the wrong,
the 3RR rule in effect can be use to silence dissent to a wrong version.
----- Original Message -----
From: slimvirgin(a)gmail.com
To: geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] 3RR applied to both parties?
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 22:19:14 -0700
>
> If Geni's interpretation of 3RR is correct, then we have an unwinnable
> game of tic tac toe going on against editors trying to keep nonsense
> out of articles. Within four hours:
>
> Skyring inserted a falsehood
> Adam reverted: Adam's #1 revert
> Skyring re-inserted it: Skyring's #1 revert
> Adam reverted: Adam's #2 revert
> Skyring re-inserted it:" Skyring's #2 revert
> Adam reverted: Adam's #3 revert
> Skyring re-inserted it: Skyring's #3 revert
> Adam reverted: Adam's #4 revert.
> Skyring calls the cops.
>
> Given this intepretation of 3RR, there's no way Adam could have kept
> the material out, except by calling other editors to help him, which
> he should have done, but it's a bit silly to have to do that over a
> content dispute that is straighforwardly factual, as it is in this
> case.
>
> But if we're going to concentrate on process and ignore quality, then
> shouldn't neither or both editors be blocked in this case?
>
> Sarah
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
_______________________________________________
NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once.
http://datingsearch.lycos.com
Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen at shaw.ca wrote:
Actually, IMO at least it seems perfectly reasonable to enforce the 3RR
even against people who are making reverts that when made in isolation
would be considered "reasonable."
That's actually my point. For Wikipedia to be managable, procedure must be
followed and policies must be enforced. Thus, the statements that I'd quoted
were **unfortunately** reasonable. The problem is the nature of the
procedure making this approach reasonable.
IMO needs radical change, along the lines of Larry Sanger's suggestions. The
way things are now, certain trolls flourish while professional historians
like Jtdril (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jtdirl#3RR_block) and
Adam Carr get blocked. Some bold structural changes would serve to correct
this problem.
-172
_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Peter, this probably isn't the place to discuss the factual details,
but in brief you are doing original research. Here is the Governor
General's page http://www.gg.gov.au/html/fset_role.html There's
nothing republican about this description.
We had a similar situation a few weeks ago when an editor kept
deleting that Israel is a parliamentary democracy, because that editor
believes that Israel is not democratic enough, and was able to quote
other sources making the same point. But that's beside the point:
Israel is recognized by reputable sources as a parliamentary
democracy, so that's the term Wikipedia uses; similarly, the Queen is
recognized as the Australian head of state by most reputable sources,
so that's what Wikipedia goes with. That doesn't mean the debate
shouldn't be characterized in the Wikipedia article, so long as it is
a real debate in that country, which I'm sure it is in Australia. But
it has to be done in a careful, scholarly way with reference to good
sources, sticking closely to what they say, and not what you feel they
imply. And the dispute has to be described, not engaged in. Check
[[Wikipedia:No original research]].
Sarah
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 16:09:45 +1100, Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 21:58:23 -0700, slimvirgin(a)gmail.com
> <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm not sure what you mean by saying you waited overnight, because you
> > made your four edits, in my view four reverts, within about four
> > hours, so far as I can see.
>
> That's true. I then gave Adam another twelve hours and more before
> taking action.
>
> >The important point here is that you're
> > trying to introduce POV into the article by claiming, I believe, that
> > Australia is a republic and that the Queen is not the head of state,
> > which is factually incorrect. You may be right (I don't know) that
> > Australia is in some sense a thinly veiled republic, but the veil is
> > everything, no matter how thin.
>
> But that's only your opinion. There is NO definitive answer as to who
> is Australia's head of state. It's not defined in the constitution,
> and the High Court has not answered the question.
> >
> > This is an interesting example of content-quality over procedure. Adam
> > Carr was trying to preserve accuracy and now he's blocked. The person
> > who has been trying to insert an inaccuracy for days, and who also
> > (arguably) reverted four times, is not blocked.
>
> Please read the discussion. If you feel you have something to
> contribute and can provide checkable sources, then I urge you to do
> so.
>
> > Peter, you may be right about there being an argument in favor of
> > saying that Australia is, in effect, a republic. But if you want to
> > introduce an issue like that into an article, you have to be very
> > careful not to violate the no-original-research rule, which says that
> > editors shouldn't come up any new analysis or synthesis of facts. In
> > other words, if you want to say Australia is a republic, you have to
> > find reputable sources who have actually said that precise thing, and
> > not just sources who have said things which, put together in a certain
> > way in a certain light, could be interpreted as implying that. The
> > former is okay; the latter is original research. I don't know, but I
> > suspect, that Adam perceived you to be doing the latter.
>
> I've provided sources going back to Federation. I've quoted the
> Wikipedia definition of republic, I've quoted the Macquarie, I've
> pointed out that even the Oxford English Dictionary makes us a
> republic. People are starting to complain about the "reams of text'.
>
> Adam's position seems to be that a republic is a non-monarchy and
> because we have a powerless monarch in a symbolic role, we cannot be a
> republic, despite the overwhelmingly republican nature of our
> constitutional arrangements, whereby sovereignty resides in the people
> and power is exercised by elected or appointed officials, rather than
> hereditary positions.
>
> --
> Peter in Canberra
>
Sean Barrett wrote:
>>>I will observe that 172 wasn't anonymous, unless the name that he used on
>>>wikien-l , Abe Sokolov, was an alias.
>>>
>>>
>>It is an alias; as his page confirms, "the name I was using in my
>>Wikipedia email account was not my own".
>>
>>Stan
>>
>>
>I hope it truly wasn't. Googling for "Abe Sokolov" yields interesting
>results, including http://us.z.webhosting.yahoo.com/gb/view?member=songunpoliticsstudygroup
>
>
Regardless of what other stuff he may have posted under that name, if
it's really not his name, it doesn't do any good to his argument for
professional expertise, since there *is* a reasonable match to that name
possessing approximately the sort of credentials 172 claimed to have.
--Michael Snow