A particular dispute over a Wikinews reporter citing quotes from his own
interview has turned into a generalized debate about when Wikinews should be
an acceptable source. See this RS/N
thread.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Wikinew…>
Jimbo has suggested that Wikinews create a best practices document.
BP-compliant articles would be verifiable and thus should be available to
Wikipedia editors as a reliable source. See this Wikinews water cooler
thread<http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler/miscellaneous#I_want_to_h…>
.
I think that this is a great solution, which would answer the continual
objections that Wikinews faces on our project. However, more editors should
weigh in.
Regards,
User:Cool Hand Luke
All,
We've chosen a license. It's CC-by-sa.
(Technically, CC-by-sa version 3.0 unported.)
Our press release can be found here:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Citizendium_Press_Releases/Dec212007
And Larry's essay on why CC-by-sa is here:
http://www.citizendium.org/czlicense.html
It's long, but I think it's quite a solid piece of
argument.
So, what does this mean? If Wikipedia does choose to
(in effect) relicense under CC-by-sa, as looks likely,
our projects will be able to seamlessly share content.
I think this will be good for Citizendium, good for
Wikipedia, and good for individual contributors split
between the two projects.
Mike Johnson
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 06:00 AM 12/25/2007, Will Beback wrote:
>
>> Countless topics have engaged POV fighters. This topic is worth
>> attention because of the maturity and tenaciousness of its proponents.
>> Those of us who've been around a while remember various clumsy efforts
>> to distort WP articles by special-interest groups, like the neo-Nazi
>> StormFront crew, etc. Pedophilia is similar but different due to the
>> sophistication of the POV editors.
>>
>> It takes uninterested editors to balance the material. Please be among them.
>>
> I'll try. But I'm not "uninterested." I have a policy of not editing
> articles where I have no interest at all in the subject, because I'm,
> then, quite likely to not understand the topic.
Though we may have different POVs on the subject, disinterest will be
enough to keep me away. Having such uninterested people work on these
articles is commendable in theory, but most of us have plenty of other
interests. We would see these topics as bottomless sinkholes of wasted
time.
> I have a POV, but I
> use my POV to detect bias. I'm disinterested in the sense that I
> value the project more than any POV, including my own.
>
> I have some experience with counseling pedophiles, though only those
> who got caught. So I know the people, in a few cases, behind that
> mask and label. And I also know a few of those who suffered from
> contact with them.
The problem here is not just that they are pedophiles, but that they
want to boast about it to a large audience. My impression of most
pedophiles is that they do not want their activities made public.
Ec
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 10:35 PM 12/24/2007, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote
>>> Q: Are they still banned?
>>>
>>> A: Yes. If we find out, we block them and reset block lengths due to
>>> block evasion.
>>>
>> This is a horrible idea (not just for pedophiles, but for anyone
>> permabanned for any reason).
>>
>> If blocking is supposed to be preventative rather than punitive,
>> then what preventative purpose is served by re-blocking this user,
>> if every indication is that he will not resume his prior behavior?
>>
> Well, it's punitive, in a way, but it's also preventative. A
> permanent ban is issued, in theory, because a judgement has been made
> that the user is quite likely to abuse the editing privilege again.
> If a user will not respect the right of the community, through its
> chosen process (or, alternatively, the owner, WMF, through its chosen
> process), to restrict access, even if there is no current harmful
> activity, there is, supposedly, a reasonable expectation that the
> user will again be tempted to violate policy.
>
One could hardly say that "reasonable expectation" is an objective
criterion. Somebody has to make that judgement, and if the person who
makes the judgement is too quick to act he's bound to make trouble.
Saying that the apparent offender must "respect the right of the
community", but must be punished even if there is "no current harmful
activity" describes a community that is capricious in the application of
policy.
> That is, that the user violates a ban is evidence that the user is
> likely to violate other policies, and, in the case described, merely
> has not done so yet.
>
How do you determine that likelihood? Likelihood is far from being a
certainty.
> In practice, the only socks of banned users that get caught this way
> are those of banned users who have *really* offended the community,
> such that those who might seem to have the same interests can get
> checkusered. I'm not sure if this is happening, but it seems to me
> from looking over checkuser cases, that socks *which were not the
> target of complaints* are getting caught. Presumably, the checkuser
> is looking at known IP for the banned user and perhaps other
> evidence, and sees new accounts matching. Some of these accounts, as
> far as I can tell, never edited (I can't see deleted edits, to be
> sure). I don't think it is policy to routinely check for permanent
> ban violations.
>
Even if abusive checkusering is not in fact happening this kind of
attitude fans the flames of opinion that it is happening, Having the
same interests, even distasteful ones, alone should not be a criterion
for investigating a person.
> So if, in fact, a permabanned user was not so egregious that editors
> are suspecting him under every bed, the likelihood of a new account
> that keeps its nose clean getting caught is fairly low, if I'm
> correct; and I suspect that if a user actually did come back and
> edited cleanly for a substantial time, then was caught up in some
> checkuser probe without actually having done anything, there might be
> some possibility of appeal. "Yes, I was BadPuppetMaster, but I've
> seen the error of my ways, I learned my lesson, and I'd really like
> to continue to contribute to the project, if you will permit." Not
> very likely, though.
You are still requiring the person to grovel, and lose face and
dignity. The most important evidence is that he has avoided bad
behaviour for a substantial time. Acknowledge that quietly and
discretely rather than starting a public drama that gets a lot of other
people wasting their time too.
Ec
Wondering if anyone had attempted a "visual disambiguation" page, for
locating plants or animals visually. A few photos could be given for
each level of the taxonomy, down to the lowest level. Would such a
thing fit within the Wikipedia framework? Would it fit better at
Wikispecies?
I have a recurring problem where I take photos of plants that I can't
identify, but really have no way to find out what they are, in order
to add them to the relevant article. And presumably such a structure
would be useful to other people, too.
Thoughts?
Steve
This discussion involves all of us. Your interpretation of "no pedo
userbox = never talk about the issue" is without weight. We do not
allow people to promote pedophilia, that is a separate issue than an
admin (yourself) inappropriately banning a user for their personal
beliefs. Just because it happens to be a related issue does not mean
you have the right to silence discussion in hopes of killing it. I'm
sorry that this specific issue deals with a topic no one wants to
touch with a 10 foot pole, but your paranoia that such a discussion is
harmful to Wikipedia, and can only be discussed with the arbcom is
absurd.
If it's talked about in the open, more people will see that you have
blocked someone for their personal beliefs, and not for their actions.
That is something that can and will eventually slide into other
issues, completely unrelated to pedophilia. Wikipedians, all
Wikipedians, have the fundamental right, given to them by Foundation
policy, to edit Wikipedia regardless of their personal beliefs. This
is an alarming issue that people should be very upset about. It's very
unfortunate that it happens to deal with an issue that causes people
to act out of emotion, rather than logic. For the sake of Wikipedia's
basic principals, do try to be objective.
-- Ned Scott
On Dec 25, 2007, at 1:48 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Your comment is here forwarded to the Arbitration Committee. Please
> direct
> all future correspondence to them. Please discontinue agitation on
> Wikipedia and on the mailing list.
>
> Fred
>
>> And this user did no such thing. Not only that, but seems to be
>> unaware that the statement made on their user page was a violation of
>> anything. Even after reading the arbcom case, I don't see how this
>> text that Zanthalon wrote could be considered something to be banned
>> over:
>>
>> "Many of you have commented that the majority of my edits are on
>> pedophilia-related articles. This is an area of interest for me since
>> I am myself a pedophile, a girllover to be specific. I would stress,
>> however, that, I am not a child molester, having never broken the law
>> or engaged in any intimate physical activities with any persons under
>> the statutory age of consent.
>> I do not have a great deal of time to devote to Wikipedia, so most of
>> it up until now has been devoted to pedophilia-related articles.
>> Hopefully in the future, I will be able to spend more time on other
>> articles as well."
>>
>> Why did you not just delete the userpage, or blank that section? Your
>> actions are that of an overzealous right winged mother who just found
>> out that a sex offender moved into the neighborhood. You have judged
>> this user based on their personal beliefs, and not their actions.
>> This
>> is entirely inappropriate, and needs to be undone.
>>
>> Might I note that users who have -created- pro-pedophile userboxes
>> have not been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. One recent creator
>> has never been banned for those actions, in fact. The ban of
>> Zanthalon
>> is completely unjust, and violates the blocking policy, the arbcom
>> case, and the Foundation's policy on discrimination.
>>
>> -- Ned Scott
>>
>>
>> On Dec 25, 2007, at 12:35 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Very ironic given the proposed principles that Fred supported
>>>> during
>>>> that case
>>>> Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pedophilia_userbox_wheel_war/
>>>> Proposed_decision#Wikipedia_is_open_to_all
>>>>
>>> As I said there:
>>>
>>> "we do exclude editors who present themselves in a grossly obnoxious
>>> way."
>>>
>>> Fred
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
>
>
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 11:00:37 -0500, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com>
wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > Free speech and writing an encyclopedia are not mutually exclusive.
>
> But they really are, if we understand what is meant in this context by
> "a free speech zone".
>
> The question here is "time, place, and manner" restrictions. If you
> want to advocate for racism (for example), you are certainly welcome to
> do so: just not here, not at Wikipedia.
Advocacy for *anything*, whether for peace and brotherhood or racism
and pedophilia, is out of place in article space, where NPOV is
required. No distinction needs to be made about whether the advocacy
is for something "good" or "bad", which avoids the inherent
subjectivity of such distinctions. The only place for "free speech"
here is in the context of "WP:NOT censored", where it is considered
improper to remove things that otherwise comply with policies simply
because they offend somebody.
In other spaces such as talk and project space, things are rather
more complex, as certain sorts of advocacy (for positions regarding
how things are done within Wikipedia, not directly for positions in
the "real world") is in-bounds and expected. There, it's meaningful
to support "free speech" for the various relevant positions in such
internal debates, and to cry foul if one side or the other is
unfairly suppressed.
User space is the trickiest of all, since some degree of real-world
"advocacy" has sometimes been tolerated in the course of self-
description, and the limits on this are unclear and ever-changing.
--
== 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/
At 08:19 PM 12/24/2007, Tony Sidaway wrote:
>On 24/12/2007, Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Bottom line is wikipedia isn't a free speech zone. It is a project to
> > write an encyclopedia.
>
>Amen.
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition?
Yes, it's a project to write an encyclopedia. However, an
encyclopedia is a compendium of human knowledge, and essential to
knowledge is freedom of judgement; the principle of the independence
of the judiciary is actually rooted in freedom from prior restraint
and opinion. Judgement is, essentially, knowlege.
Speech which is relevant to writing the encyclopedia clearly must be
free from artificial constraint; however, that is not the only speech
which should be *relatively* free: speech involved in building the
community of editors likewise may not function effectively if subject
to prior restraint.
However, the issue here is speech as conduct. The classic example is,
of course, yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. Now, the issue with
pedophilia is complicated by, as others have noted, the near-hysteria
that accompanies public reaction to it. What is, effectively, an
offensive advertisement, the userbox in question, is no better than
any other kind of trolling for outraged response, and it is properly
banned on that basis. I'm troubled, though, by a suggestion that
pedophiles are banned, per se. How do we know? Do we ask their
therapist or lawyer or their parole officer? Do we search lists of
sexual offenders?
Do we attempt to infer pedophilia from opinions expressed? Charges of
pedophilia against the Prophet Muhammad are common among certain
critics of Islam. If a Muslim or other writer defends the Prophet
against those charges, is he or she in danger of being identified as
a pedophile or sympathizer?
And, by the way, what about terrorism? If someone defends or
justifies the actions of a terrorist, can that person be blocked or
banned on that basis? Perhaps someone who defends Menachem Begin
should be blocked, after all.... If anyone is outraged reading this,
please understand that I'm not accusing anyone of terrorism or
sympathy with terrorism, only noting that there is no end to the
possible witch-hunts.
No, someone who clearly trolls for outrage, or who offends public
decency, without necessity, or who solicits illegal activity, for any
of these things, a user can be blocked. Focusing on pedophilia simply
confuses the issue.
"users should refrain from creating user pages likely to bring the
project into disrepute. The pedophile userbox (and the like) falls
into this category." This, quoted from the ANI on this, is correct.
Userboxes are not a critical part of anyone's participation in the project.
In order to write articles about pedophilia, I'd certainly hope that
the POV of pedophiles would not be excluded. However, they need not
be personally identified as such, and the personal identification of
editors is actually irrelevant. If it's likely to generate outrage,
it's disruptive unless it is necessary.
>From the Phoenix article linked elsewhere:
"Swartz, however, launched a study of his own, which found a marked
difference between edit-intensive users, who contribute small fixes to
existing entries, and those who actually wrote the bulk of articles.
"Almost every time I saw a substantive edit," he writes, "I found the
user who had contributed it was not an active user of the site. They
generally had made less than 50 edits (typically around 10), usually
on related pages. Most never even bothered to create an account."
In other words: it's generally the core crew of several thousand
dedicated Wikipedians who combine to keep the site refined and
readable, correcting mistakes and counteracting vandalism. But it's
usually regular folks with special expertise (the self-proclaimed
Dylanologist, the amateur horticulturalist, the military buff),
writing one or two or five articles apiece, who've contributed the
bulk of the content. Both groups are equally important to Wikipedia's
success."
http://thephoenix.com/Article.aspx?id=52864&page=2
I haven't asked GlassCobra exactly how scientific his 'study' is, but
it matches my own intuition. This is precisely why I believe that our
notions of the 'community' are quite incorrect in orientation, and the
regular contempt and suspicion showered on IPs apparently getting
uppity and on new/returning accounts is the worst possible thing for
the project. I suspect that there are more people actually creating
the useful content on WP than those with long-term, high-count
established accounts warring on policy pages and project-space appear
to imagine there are.
RR