Will Beback wrote:
>> My questions for Will Beback, or anyone else in the future who
>> proposes a new policy that forbids all links to "sites that contain
>> attacks" are this:
>>
>> #1. Do you agree that the Making Light case was an abuse of power (or
>>at least, incorrect. .-- i.e. Do you agree Making lights should NOT
>> have been purged)?
>
>The blogger abused her power to harass Wikipedia editors. Should her
>self-published website have been removed as a result, or should she have
>been "rewarded" by adding more links to it?
>
>> #2. And if so, how will your new proposed policy prevent this sort of
>> abuse when the old policy was unable to. That is-- if we all
>> magically decided to enact your policy today, what's to stop you (or
>> me, or anyone) from turning around tomorrow and having a complete
>> repeat of this whole fiasco tomorrow.
>
>Let me ask you - will your proposal prevent bloggers who edit Wikipedia
>from using their blogs to settle on-Wiki disputes?
So what I'm taking away from all that, in your opinion, while the
admin in the Making Lights case may have made a few minor procedural
errors (not solicting 3rd parties first, etc), basically the actions
taken were were appropriate. ML should have been purged, or at
least, it should have been been purged if it ultimately decided not to
self-censor?
Alec
On 18 Oct 2007 at 15:27:13 -0700, William Pietri
<william(a)scissor.com> wrote:
> And in my opinion, we should always reach out to the offended party or
> community to at least make nice, and hopefully to work with them to the
> extent possible.
"I'm not ready to make nice." -- Dixie Chicks
--
== 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/
-----Original Message-----
From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 12:47 PM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
On 15/10/2007, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> on 10/15/07 12:39 PM, David Gerard at dgerard(a)gmail.com wrote:
> > Yes. The community is important to the encyclopedia, but the
> > encyclopedia is more important than the community writing it.
> This seems to be your personal POV throughout, David. Would you consider the
> possibility of at least an equal balance between the two?
I'm not sure how that could really work, though. The point of
gathering the community is to write the encyclopedia. It may be useful
to pretend otherwise at times, but that's actually the purpose.
-d.
_______________________________________________
The encyclopedia is the work of the community, its creation. Thus the encyclopedia is dependent on the viability and integrity of the community.
Fred
As some have predicted, with the electronic ink not yet even dry on
the BADSITES decision, the link-prohibitionists are already pushing
for something more censorious than what ArbCom actually decided. JzG
(who I thought had stormed off in a huff not too long ago, leaving
his account "permanently") posted a series of lengthy manifestos to
the WP:RFAR page in favor of imposing a ban on links to Wikipedia
Review on the grounds that they don't run their forum the way JzG
wishes them to run it -- banning all the same people Wikipedia has
banned, banning all the topics Wikipedia has banned, pledging their
fealty and loyalty to Wikipedia, Jimbo, and ArbCom, and so on. The
theory seems to be that Wikipedia can and should dictate the policies
of all other Web sites and forums through the strategy of banning
links to uncooperative ones.
At least when *I* write lengthy manifestos, I actually call them user
essays, rather than ArbCom requests for clarification.
--
== 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/
In thinking about Charles's recent "I've got this crazy idea" posting, I
came up with a crazy idea of my own. I'd love some feedback.
We've got a lot of cleanup work around here. The people who end up doing
it often burn out because they do too much. And from the outside, some
of the cleanup areas seem to get taken over by people with much more
ardent views than the mainstream, causing a lot of friction. This
reminds me of several of the shared houses I've lived in. Could we use
the same solution, a chore wheel?
The notion is that we would put together a way for people to say
something like
* I can work in areas X, Y, and Z
* I can do it for N hours at a time
* I'll do it T times a month
And then they get notified when it's their turn to do something.
So for example, I might get a notice twice a month that I'm in for a
four-hour shift on looking at AfDs, or RC patrol. Whatever area is in
most need of labor gets the help. Perhaps we could include a way for
people to report their shifts completed, so that we could list the virtuous.
I'd use something like this. Would others?
Thanks,
William
--
William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri
On 15 Oct 2007 at 14:34:44 -0700, Will Beback
<will.beback.1(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Doing so won't punish those sites, or even make them stop the
> harassment, but it will reduce the disruption to Wikipedia that those
> sites cause. If there's a better way to do that then please suggest it.
The way I see it, there has been vastly more disruption to Wikipedia
coming from attempts to suppress links to sites than has ever
occurred by the presence of such links.
--
== 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/
On 18 Oct 2007 at 08:12:46 +0000, fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info wrote:
> Yes, that is the bottom line: Harassment is done in order to influence content.
And the solution to that is to be resolute in not letting our content
be influenced by harrassment. But going around removing otherwise-
valid links because they're associated in some way with harrassment
is one form of "letting our content be influenced by harrassment"...
in fact, it might even in some cases be precisely what the harrasser
*wants* to see us do, if they're a troll who thrives on provoking
drama and overreaction.
--
== 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/
"Andrew Gray" wrote
> A couple of years back, it must have been, I remember someone talking
> about having a category of "redlink articles"; pages of people's own
> articles-to-get-around-to worklists. I don't know if it's still there,
> but this might be just what you want.
>
> (If you manage to find one, I'll write you a redlink list to go in it)
A dedicated category would be a good idea.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
"Andrew Gray" wrote
> (Bagehot would have loved us, I have to say.)
Still looking for the dignified part of the constitution (or anything else) on Wikipedia.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam