Giovanni di Stefano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_di_Stefano)
- and a sticking point in article work.
The implication of recent editing there is that we can no longer
mention or refer to sources like The Times, or The Guardian even on
talk pages, if they may lead readers who click on them to think worse
of the article subject.
This presents problems.
BADSOURCES anyone?
<runs immediately for cover, and means every word. Please use the
world 'Clown' instead of 'Troll' when responding to this post, and
'broohaha' instead of 'drama'>
Re: [WikiEN-l] Assume bad faith, for banned users.
> Earlier: "... if a banned user wants to
> convince me of something ..." "... I bet
> there's ten times the traffic on this list
> by regular users responding to banned
> users, or debating topics brought up by
> banned users, as there is by banned
> users..." "...If you've been independently
> banned from that many sites ... it's
> almost certainly your fault ..." "... if you'd
> rather ... let something disgusting ...
> occur just to keep from being banned,
> then fine ..." "... This is a waste of time.
> Can we ban him from this list please? ..."
Peter Blaise responds: Ahh, meta discussions - discussions about our
discussions. Every community has 'em.
If we stop banning or deleting anything that's not spam, not vandalism,
not off topic, that would allow us to recycle all this energy into
constructive activities.
Or not.
It's up to us. Even without a ban on banning, admins could volunteer
NOT to ban, all on their own, and go out and construct something,
instead.
It could happen.
==========
Re: [WikiEN-l] Time to reboot wikien-l
> Earlier: "... find a collection of people who
> are willing to moderate wikien-forum ...
> People write in proposing new threads.
> If any moderator thinks the topic is
> interesting or important, they can
> volunteer to curate the thread ..."
It's called BLOGS, and anyone can do that now, all on their own. No
one's stopping 'em.
Otherwise, I will NEVER understand why someone complains about their own
inability to scroll on, or hit their own delete key, and instead blames
someone else for all their own incessant typing to respond to something
that does not interest them.
Huh? 'splain away - I'm all ears!
Anyway, I like the archives because I can search for threads I missed or
was not interested in at the time. If I were to block threads that were
not interesting to me at any one moment in time, this list and it's
archives would not exist - hey, it would be my blog! Doh!
Are links to websites that require you to pay to view content allowed? I
assumed not untill I realised that we cite books and newspapers all the
time, and they require purchasing...
Phoenix-wiki
>No, there are people who seem to be acting in good faith but just really
don't
>work well with others or can't get over their own POV. We should confuse
bad
>faith (i.e. Judd Bagley) with good faith editors who just don't work well
with
>other people at all.
This is true, but once they are banned they are banned. People who
are merely difficult get editing restrictions - revert parole,
civility parole. Giano is still there. SPUI left, unfortunately,
but was not kicked out.
Guy (JzG)
******
Basically, once a user is banned the burden of evidence shifts. That is, if
a banned user wants to convince me of something then I expect them to verify
it in a manner that holds up to scrutiny. That means they provide diffs and
logic, and before I trust their version I check it out through other means
to see whether that matches the whole story. Most of the time what banned
users present is cherry picked evidence and half truths. That's been my
field experience. The times when things do check out I'll work within the
parameters of site policies to help them.
-Durova
> Earlier: "... Here's an example:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dorftrottel/disclosure
> Whether the guy will make a success of
> it or not I can't guess, but you have to
> award him points for self-awareness
> and honesty..."
Peter Blaise responds: I especially like the writer's use of
"...occasional total...", as in "...my occasional total lack of civility
and patience..."
Compare that the content of their user page: "... While there is an
abundance of thoroughly referenced articles, there are surprisingly many
articles (and not nearly all of them are stubs) completely lacking in
reliable sources. You may call me pedantic, but I'm one of those
conservative guys who does not regard some online interview or biased
fan page as a reliable source (As a matter of fact I do, but saying that
aloud would irrevocably ruin my chances of ever becoming an admin, which
is the only thing I'm here for, after all...."
We're all enigmas after a fashion. I wonder what my own
physiotherapist's notes look like.
My point is that we are not here to scrutinize each other; we're here to
build an community that builds an encyclopedia.
My hope is that anyone visiting a Wikipedia page and seeing an
unreferenced contribution would do one of three things:
- nothing,
- note on the page that a reference is needed,
- find a reference and add it to the page.
That's it.
''It is by universal misunderstanding that all agree. For if, by ill
luck, people understood each other, they would never agree''. --
Charles Baudelaire
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1299.html
> Earlier: "... If a banned user considers
> they are ready now to contribute in a
> way that is not going to cause friction,
> they can appeal the ban ..."
Peter Blaise responds: Although we may be right in identifying
"friction" as the perceived problem, I do not see "friction" as against
the rules, Wikipedia wise.
Also, I do not necessarily see "friction" as only the banned user's
fault or responsibility. Rather, it may also be the fault or
responsibility of the one who feels fricted (to coin a term). I
generally find that friction is caused not by the first person, but by
the second person on the scene - the confused, misinterpreting admin,
ready to pounce, looking for trouble, wielding the banning hammer!
"Where's a nail? Where's a nail? There's gotta be a nail here
somewhere! THERE'S a nail. WHAM!!!" One more newbie editor bites the
dust. Next?
Anyone trying to accurately and appropriately contribute to Wikipedia
might be experienced as frictitious (hey, who else is exploring possible
new forms of the root word "friction"?) by someone else who has a
lesser, immature, perhaps inaccurate understanding of what Wikipedia is
all about (by it's own definitions), perhaps an overly personal
ownership of what they perceive as their part of Wikipedia. Resolving
the friction by one person (an admin?) banning another (poor
unsuspecting volunteer newbie editor) is merely a power play, and that
is what I am trying to convince us all to STOP. If we cannot stand the
heat, then get out of the friction! If we cannot make something
positive out of that heat, then there are other ways to avoid friction
that do not involve banning:
- move OURSELVES away from the scene (why are admins so afraid to walk
away after an initial contact, and let someone else try a different tack
later?) - do not intersect.
- lubricate, that is, communicate openly (with patience, tolerance,
acceptance, and equivalent consideration, of course) so we slide
gracefully along the intersection of our differently chosen paths -
learn and grow.
- lock step so there is no slippage, that is, we give in, and agree
with the other so there is no more friction! (OMG, when was the last
time an admin actually admitted to learning something new from a newbie
or an editor during a dispute?!? Is this a statistical improbability
that admins are ALWAYS pre-right, and have nothing left to learn, have
no new insights to bring to Wikipedia? If we've stopped growing as
admins, then it's time to retire, and time to go bury ourselves
somewhere ELSE!)
==========
TONE: I imagine that some of us think that we SPEAK nicely and
politely, and so we then think our WORDS themselves are nice and polite,
when it is really our SPEAKING STYLE that is solicitous. However, when
we WRITE those same words to a stranger who is not in the room hearing
our cool, calm, polite TONE, we get so surprised when other people react
to our WORDS themselves, when we know our TONE was nice. Here's a
sample of an admin's words that I find inappropriate from anyone, let
alone an admin, even though I can imagine them speaking these "nicely",
calmly, slowly and politely in person:
"... I find your tone incredibly insulting, and largely off the point
(which is not uncommon for your page-long responses). Your response
seemed to be directed at my comment, not to [...]'s, and even if it had
been it was not relevant or useful to the discussion at hand, so it was
rightfully deleted. Please try and be less inflammatory, and please try
and stick to the point when engaging other people in discussion, rather
than attempting to turn every conversation into a Blaising argument...
--[[User:[...]]] 17:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)..."
Note this admin took no responsibility for deleting anything, using the
passive form "was deleted", uses conclusory assessment without specifics
(calling some unknown part of my previous writing "inflammatory"), and
note this admin also ridiculed my name, turning Blaise into "Blaising".
Anyway, read that quote a few times, and I can get it to sound so sweet
and unctuous, as from a breathy grammar school teacher trying to be
over-the-top-calm or some such imagination. Regardless, all we have is
the words, not the writer's original tone they had in their head when
writing.
I do not advocate banning that admin or others like them. If I don't
want to be banned for my words, for my inarticulate expression, for my
learning curve, then I do not want others to be banned for their words,
for their inarticulate expressions, for their learning curve, either!
In fact, I advocate the opposite of banning - taking the banning powers
away from everyone! If it ain't spam, ain't vandalism, ain't off-topic,
banning is inappropriate. I advocate, instead, dialogical discussion.
OMG, we might say, THAT could go on forever! Versus the endless
discussions over banning in the first place? Look, if we're gonna have
an endless discussion anyway, let's move the chat away from "banning"
(by stopping banning) and steer the chat back toward "Wikipedia
construction".
We have found the problem, and it is us.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: symode09(a)hotmail.com <symode09(a)hotmail.com>
Date: 16 Nov 2007 12:23
Subject: [Foundation-l] WIKIMEDIA CENSUS
To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
heya everyone!
We are currently working on a wikimedia census. There will be three
sections - a section which will be asked to the public, a section
relating to the specific project a user is working on and a section to
the wikimedia community on their opinion of projects they do not work
on. Could you please add your questions to
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Census. Please only ask questions which
are useful. Add as many as you want - don't worry about the limit of
questions. Please help since we are trying to get this done as soon as
possible. Also, if you have an idea on how to incorporate a php survey
into mediawiki or, have an idea about how to send the census out to
the users of wikimedia projects, please add your idea to
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Census#Ways_to_send_out_census
thanks
Deni
[[meta:User:Symode09]]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 15 Nov 2007 at 14:56:22 +0000, Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
> Which neatly proves that we need sockpuppeting banned users like a
> hole in the head.
But we have no power to make them go away, short of going the
Citizendium route and limiting editing to approved accounts under the
editor's real name. We only have power over what we do when they
show up, and if what they crave is attention and drama, the more
excessive and exaggerated our response to them is, the more we're
playing into their hands.
If they send sockpuppets to take both sides of a contentious issue,
then a policy of never reverting to the version that was the result
of an edit by a banned user is a nonstarter, since *both* versions
under contention were edited by banned users. Instead of a knee-jerk
revert, one is compelled to actually consider which of the versions
best serves the encyclopedia. Hopefully, this can be done through
calm and rational discussion that doesn't give the trolls the drama
they crave; this means that anybody who gets in a state of anger as a
result of the trolling (it's immaterial whether it's anger that a
link was added, anger that a link was deleted, anger that one or more
banned users edited, or anger at the response of admins to this)
really should step back from their keyboard and calm down before
proceeding. Yes, that means me too. We were all suckered into
taking the trolls' bait on this one; you, me, and everybody else who
involved themselves in that issue.
Another troll tactic (as I think you pointed out yourself) is to
purposely make good edits such as fixing typos and reverting
vandalism, from an obvious sockpuppet account, in the hope of
provoking admins into reverting them (and thus putting vandalism and
typos back in) in the name of absolutism when dealing with banned
editors. In these cases, the absolutists are giving the trolls what
they want, compounded even more if the admins actually insist that
nobody else is allowed to revert to the banned user's verion either,
and the error is forced to be kept indefinitely.
> That's a solution to the symptom. A better solution would be for
> them to go away and stop trying to plant disinformation via third
> party sources such as Robert Black.
Unfortunately, we have no control over what people do with regard to
outside sites and blogs.
--
== 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/
Strongly agree with William;
>Off the top of my head, I'd suggest these:
>
> * wikien-interesting:
> * wikien-forum:
> * wikien-open:
and with regard to wikien-sewer - why not leave this list open, and
allow those who to remain to do so, whilst the new channels pick up
the perhaps more useful traffic?
Also strongly endorse Steve's comments.
PM.