Mark Gallagher wrote:
> G'day Michael S,
>> Mark Gallagher wrote:
>>> G'day Daniel S,
>>>> (And in the legal world there are also phenomena such as jury
>>>> nullification and rogue judges...)
>>> We have them on Wikipedia, too. Witness the Jack Thompson OFFICE
>>> action and certain admins.
>> Pardon me, but what exactly are you referring to here?
> The Jack Thompson OFFICE action was an incident that occurred not too
> long ago. Some background (I don't know if you already know this
> stuff, so bear with me if you do): the American Jack Thompson is a
> professional lawyer and talented amateur wowser, famous amongst a
> small subset of gamers. The reason he's well-known to hardcore gamers
> is because the target of his wowserism is violent video games. Since
> hardcore gamers typically enjoy playing violent video games above all
> else, this is not a match made in heaven by any means.
> Through a curious quirk of the Internet, hardcore gamers are far more
> likely to contribute Wikipedia than American attorneys. In
> particular, strange though it sounds, hardcore gamers are far more
> likely to contribute to an article about Mr Thompson full of such
> improperly sourced, utterly trivial, and of course totally biased
> nonsense that the only reason I can't describe it as a "hatchet job"
> is because the phrase "embarrassment to Wikipedia" leaps far more
> readily to the tongue.
> When the Secret Wikipedia Puppet Government, aided by the Men In
> Black, finally pulled the plug on this hatch--excuse me, this
> embarrassment to Wikipedia, a thousand thousand gamers rose up in
> complaint. "That asshole Thompson wins again!", they cried.
> "Wikipedia under the control of a Secret Wikipedia Puppet Government,
> aided by the Men in Black!", they cried. "I credit my 'blog. That's
> enough for me to argue that Thompson is a Satanist, right?", they
> cried. "Ow, I just stood up for the first time in seventy-two hours
> and my knee joints cracked!", they cried.
As the person who drafted and watched over the rewritten Jack Thompson
article, I do already know what transpired, but you give a decent
summary for those who don't (as long as it's not taken too literally). I
would note that quite a few of the gamer editors quickly recognized the
superiority of a neutral, well-referenced version and have increasingly
taken over defending it and educating the newer arrivals on how to do
> This seems to me a good case of "jury nullification": we asked for an
> opinion, we got utter bollocks in return, we said, "actually, let's
> not do what they said after all."
This is what confused me. If, as it would seem, you're equating the
response from gamers with that of a jury, then you've got the concept of
jury nullification exactly backwards. Jury nullification does not
involve a judge or some other higher authority nullifying the decision
of the jury. Jury nullification refers to the ability of the jury to
reach a verdict contrary to the law and the instructions of the court.
Fans of the concept like to cite John Peter Zenger's acquittal on a
charge of libel as an example of this.
Warning: This message contains shouting. Please cover your virtual
ears if necessary.
On Jul 8, 2006, at 4:51 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Mboverload is right...
I think you read far more into the utterance you quoted than is there.
> Heck even forget vandalizing, just consider
> folks coming by to add their favorite idea or interpretation.
> Wikipedia tries to be on the average pretty good, but our model
> doesn't try to be good at every instant, in fact it fundamentally
> precludes being good at every instant.
Very well said. We really do need to keep making this as clear as
possible - *WIKIPEDIA IS A PROJECT TO WRITE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA -
WIKIPEDIA.ORG *IS* *NOT* *AN* *ENCYCLOPEDIA* - IT IS A *D*R*A*F*T* OF
AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. (Pardon the shouting.)
The only reason we are leery of clarifying this point is that we still
(justifiably) hope to capture (and turn into Wikipedian editors),
innocent users who visit Wikipedia.org merely to *read*. I wish I knew
a better way to do this, but I don't.
> From: Jesse W <jessw(a)netwood.net>
> \However, many bad pages created are not created in bad faith - the
> people who create them are not vandals. People who think the
> encyclopedia would benefit from an article on their novel theory of
> history, or their new company, or this fascinating new website they
> just came across - *are* *not* acting in bad faith, and *are* *not*
> intending to damage the 'pedia (although, in fact, they are), and so
> *are* *not* vandals.
When anyone who creates a new article, a message above the edit box
is displayed which reads:
"Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about
yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles created
as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in
accordance with our deletion policies."
Anyone who goes ahead anyway and creates an article promoting their
new company most certainly _is_ acting in bad faith.
>I think the problem with DRV and other processes that reivew
content is the entire premise.
>I reviewed a backlog previously to discover a template. To my
horror, it noted:
>"The community is interested in process not content".
>This is madness. - Randall Brackett
I am most definitely not a lawyer, but I think it's exactly the same
distinction as the distinction between a _trial_ and an _appeal._
(And in the legal world there are also phenomena such as jury
nullification and rogue judges...)
Mark Gallagher wrote:
> G'day Daniel S,
>> (And in the legal world there are also phenomena such as jury
>> nullification and rogue judges...)
> We have them on Wikipedia, too. Witness the Jack Thompson OFFICE
> action and certain admins.
Pardon me, but what exactly are you referring to here?
At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Central_discussions/Apartheid a series of competing proposals have been made on how to deal with various articles on modern uses of the word "apartheid", namely [[Israeli apartheid]], [[gender apartheid]], [[sexual apartheid]], [[Crime of apartheid]] and [[global apartheid]] and also the articles [[Apartheid outside of South Africa]] and [[Apartheid (disambiguation)]]. The proposals vary from merging various articles (particularly Israeli apartheid) to leaving the articles in their current state. The debate and voting has been dominated by various interests - it would thus be best for the community if a broader cross section of people including disinterested and neutral parties, reviewed the proposals and had their say.
Jesse W wrote:
>And, for "vandalism", it still is. For misguided people - it has
>always been discussion until either the misguided people
>change their minds or enough other people get fed up, then
>more or less forceful requests to leave.
There are no such things as page creation vandals? How
interesting. Do please expand on this fascinating new
insight into what is currently happening on WIkipedia?
> From: <poore5(a)adelphia.net>
> Of course getting broad community input is good. But I wish that >you would participate in the proposed mediation.
I'm considering it but I think the process really needs input from editors who do not have strong feelings on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.