-----Original Message-----
From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 12:33 PM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case about to close
On 17/10/2007, fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
> Please do not republish personal attacks.
This appears in practice to work as "Please do not discuss personal attacks."
- d.
_______________________________________________
In some cases it might be better to discuss them privately.
Fred
On 17/10/2007, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> The only real exceptions would be known recluses (the [[J.D.
> Salinger]] exception). Mind you, I'm surprised and pleased that one of
> the very few existing photos of [[Thomas Pynchon]] is US Government
> PD!
That's an interesting image, as it happens ([[Image:Pynchon.jpg]]) -
the description refers to an "Army passport", but that looks rather
like a sailor's uniform to me...
"Thomas Dalton" wrote
> > We could maybe stagger elections to have two a year, but given how
> > dreadful elections are, I think that's unlikely to be productive.
> If it happens every year, that's all the more reason to do something
> about it, surely?
>
> I think the current term length is too long. Things online move very
> fast - 3 years is an extremely long time. I think elections every 6
> months, giving an 18 month term length, would work better. I know it's
> twice as many elections, but they're not really that time consuming -
> I think it's worth it.
You are assuming an entirely elected AC. This has never been the case. (Those who treat it as axiomatic that electing the AC is the only way will have to live with what they get.) There could perfectly well be appointments made in the second half of the year. Some kind of substitute system is probably the best compromise anyway.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 17 Oct 2007 at 5:29, 23:39:50 -0400 wrote:
> When two groups A and B are locked in prolonged, internecine
> argument, one great way of discovering which is the more reasonable
> (and therefore probably more accurate in its portrayal of the
> debate) is to check their respective websites. If A's website,
> down underneath its point-by-point repudiation of everything B
> stands for, says something like, "but for an opposing viewpoint,
> see http://www.B.org", and if B's website, on the other hand,
> steadfastly refuses to acknowledge A's, it's a safe bet that A
> has the moral high ground.
Yes, that agrees with my own philosophy. On my own personal Web
sites, I'm constantly linking to things I totally disagree with, just
to give access to a wide range of views. And a while back, when
comic book artist/writer [[John Byrne]] was feuding with Wikipedia
over his bio, I noted that his own Web forum had declared itself a
"Wikipedia-free zone" and banned all links to Wikipedia, and I
considered this to be giving Wikipedia a clear moral high ground
there. I'm distressed to see Wikipedia yielding this high ground
where other critics' sites are concerned.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
"Daniel R. Tobias" wrote
> That, in fact, is how I got dragged into the whole BADSITES issue in
> the first place, since I was one of those who liked to make fun of
> the silly stuff that got said in those sites, with links, and I also
> at one point was featured in both Brandt's Hivemind and Merkey's
> MerkeyLaw, and proudly linked to them on my user page for it. I
> resented a policy that told me I couldn't do what I regarded as
> harmless diversion.
Well, we collectively might have to grow up a bit, and not descend to the level of those who mock (and worse).
> In the greater scheme of things, this is probably a "minor price to
> pay" as noted above, but in terms of the harm done to the general
> culture of Wikipedia (by not only BADSITES itself, but by the entire
> mindset behind it and all its other manifestations), where the entire
> field of discussion gets riddled with landmines, tripwires, and
> political third rails that one must avoid, the harm is more than
> minor in my opinion. It's similar to the pernicious harm to academia
> caused by the Political Correctness movement, where students and
> faculty are afraid to speak freely for fear of offending some
> minority group.
Right. There is some danger that this thread might fizzle out, since the case is closed. Why not batten on an off-topic discussion of PC? I'm sure we'll all be illuminated.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
I wouldn't give up so easy. Not all "links to personal attacks" really are. Some may be to legitimate criticism.
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Gray [mailto:shimgray@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 04:01 PM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case about to close
On 17/10/2007, fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
> context and purpose. Fred's insistence that hyperlinking a personal attack,
> regardless of purpose or context, constitutes republishing that attack is a
> perfect example of this.
>
> Johnleemk
> _______________________________________________
>
> It depends on whether the link is to a personal attack.
Eh? Whether hyperlinking to a personal attack is bad... depends on
whether the link goes to a personal attack?
I give up.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----Original Message-----
From: John Lee [mailto:johnleemk@gmail.com]
Indeed - rather, I meant that as a humorous example. Now it appears we
cannot even discuss these sites on-wiki - or at the very least, can't
hyperlink URLs to them. And, of course, eventually there will be a notable
site devoted to attacking Wikipedians, at which point, we will have to
re-examine this policy.
Johnleemk
_______________________________________________
Please don't republish personal attacks on other users.
Fred
"Thomas Dalton" wrote
> Who would appoint them? Jimbo has been steadily reducing his direct
> involvement with the English Wikipedia, I can't see him wanting to
> increase it again.
Well, why not ask? Jimbo is actually doing what he has adverted to over the years, getting out of the operational matters. Doesn't mean he's out of circulation. I actually mentioned appointments after the summer to him, earlier in the year. The whole slowdown business is entirely predictable to those who grok the AC's work.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Will Beback wrote:
> Delirium wrote:
>> Will Beback wrote:
>>
>>> The purpose of Wikipedia is to create articles full of content, not
>>> full
>>> of external links. I'd argue that the article on Michael Moore does not
>>> require a link to his website, nor does any article require having any
>>> external link. External links are a convenience to readers, but aren't
>>> part of the goal of the encyclopedia.
>>>
>>>
>> Sure they are. The technical matter of a link is merely a convenience to
>> our users, true, but the mention in the article body that Michael Moore
>> runs a popular website is encyclopedic content. And furthermore posts on
>> the website of a popular person are reliable sources for that person's
>> view, and frequently used as such in academic writing (articles on
>> michaelmoore.com are cited in hundreds of journal articles and
>> academic-press books). Having a separate self-referential standard for
>> sources is bizarre: we should generally not have policies about sources
>> that special-case them based on what they say about Wikipedia.
>>
>> -Mark
>>
This proposal isn't about criticism of Wikipedia or its editors. It is
about active harassment of Wikipedia editors. Real live volunteers just
like you and me.
For some reason MichaelMoore.com seems to be the single example folks
are interested in. But we also need a policy that can address
non-celebrity blogs like ASM, forums like WP, wikis like ED, and any
other self-published website that actively engages in harassing
Wikipedia editor. Most of them are only usable as sources for themselves
anyway, so the collateral damage of re-categorizing them as unreliable
would be minimal.
There are many ways that we could help readers get more information on a
BLP subject. We could post the subject's phone number or address so that
readers could contact the subjects directly. We could provide links to
their publisher's website. We could add external link to sites that
charge money, or that are published in a foreign language. Yet we don't
normally do those things for good reasons. Simply providing every
possible iota of information isn't our purpose. We redact personal
contact info from BLPs because we respect our subjects, and we shouldn't
include links to self-published sites that are harassing Wikipedia
editors because we respect our editors.
Will Beback.
>
>
Let me throw out an idea that might address the base problem,
harassment, in a way that would perhaps obviate the need for censorship.
I don't know if this is a great idea or not, but perhaps you folks can
find and/or patch the flaws.
I propose that we create a fund to support editors who are being
harassed solely or mainly because of legitimate on-Wikipedia work. We
fund this through contributions from the community. No WMF money would
be involved, but perhaps they would consent to hold and/or supervise the
fund.
What do I mean by support? Well, that would be up to the community, but
I imagine it would include:
* Legal or investigative support to someone pursuing criminal
charges against a harasser.
* Legal or investigative support to someone pursuing a civil suit
against a harasser, especially when seeking a protective order.
* Public relations assistance for the target of a high-profile
harassment campaign.
* Compensation for cash costs of dealing with harassment, like
changing phone numbers or moving.
* Legal support to someone frivolously sued for legitimate and
beneficial on-Wikipedia activity.
Why would we do this?
* To signal to community members that they will be supported when
attacked by kooks.
* To provide a deterrent for people who might harass productive,
good-faith Wikipedia editors.
* If necessary, to make an example of a harasser as a warning to
future potential attackers.
* To stand behind editors who might otherwise hesitate when wading
in to clean up a mess.
Would this work? Could it be done in a way that would be unlikely to go
too far wrong? And would this help satisfy the people who are currently
pushing for various forms of censorship as a solution to harassment?
Humbly submitted,
William
P.S. If this happens, I'm in for the first $100.
--
William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri