>-----Original Message-----
>From: Slim Virgin [mailto:slimvirgin@gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 05:38 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Getting hammered in a tv interview is not fun
>
>On 3/30/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:
>> I think even the Wikipedia Review crowd realizes this, as evidenced
>> by a recent message by Somey that says:
>> WP is going to have to accept the notion that on an anonymous,
>> publicly-editable website, the very existence of a biographical
>> webpage can and should be considered a form of attack ...
>>
>> ... Since such a change would
>> be clearly unconstitutional in the United States (under the First
>> Amendment), he apparently wants a global dictatorship (run by the
>> UN?) that can overrule national laws, courts, and constitutions.
>>
>Is Somey's argument such a bad one? Wikipedia biographies can be the
>cyber equivalent of putting a person in the village stocks. Does the
>Foundation have a duty of care toward people who end up with
>biographical pages, in virtue of offering the website, the tools, the
>policies, and the inadequate policing? Is it foreseeable that our
>policies and the way we enforce them could harm people? Do individual
>editors have a duty of care toward people when they create bios about
>them?
>
>We don't know what a court would decide, and so it might be wise to
>act before we find out.
Within broad parameters, we do know what courts will decide. The two watchwords are libel and malicious editing.
But beyond that is a duty to be helpful and kind to those who are victims of the structure of our information system. There are many thousands of people who have only received press coverage due to some unfortunate incident. There is no published information about any other aspect of their life. It is grossly inappropriate to have an encyclopedia article about such persons.
Fred
On 30 Mar 2007 at 09:58, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
> I don't consider this scenario likely, though. We _are_ serious about
> removing libel, we've got powerful policies to that effect, and the site
> is laden with disclaimers in case we temporarily miss some. I have faith
> that the legal system is not _completely_ insane, as evidenced by the
> fact that numerous other sources that could be much more damaging have
> yet to be sued out of existence.
I think even the Wikipedia Review crowd realizes this, as evidenced
by a recent message by Somey that says:
WP is going to have to accept the notion that on an anonymous,
publicly-editable website, the very existence of a biographical
webpage can and should be considered a form of attack. And
ultimately, the trick might be to get the laws changed
(internationally, one would hope) to establish that principle
specifically.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=7817
So he understands that the present legal system doesn't accept his
novel theory that Wikipedia bios = Defamation (no matter what their
content), and hence wants to *change* the legal system. And you
thought that that crowd was audacious when they demanded that
Wikipedia change all its policies to suit them; they actually want to
do it to the international legal system. Since such a change would
be clearly unconstitutional in the United States (under the First
Amendment), he apparently wants a global dictatorship (run by the
UN?) that can overrule national laws, courts, and constitutions.
--
== 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/
I'm wondering the value of presenting one's identity vs. using a pseudonym.
Sites such as meatball advocate the use of true names, but Essjay did have a
point in one of his observations that using a real name can leave an editor
more vulnerable. Does anyone believe wikipedia should lean more towards one
of the two sides?
On 30 Mar 2007 at 17:23, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/30/07, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't think Jon Awbrey is actually banned - at least, I can't recall
> > it. Rather, he 'left the project' rather volubly (on this mailing
> > list especially, to the point of getting moderated) and then, like
> > many 'departed' users, returned under different names. I'm not sure
> > of the specifics.
>
> He was banned after exhausting the communities patience, and
> indefinitely blocked by User:Gwernol on September 7, 2006. He has
> since created over 100 sockpuppets. He used them to edit war
> incessantly at [[Truth theory]], an article filled with his original
> research, until the article was permanently deleted. Since then he's
> been edit-warring at [[Charles Peirce]], another article he has filled
> with his original research. I believe he's edited the latter article
> with over a dozen sockpuppets.
And he's a frequent poster to Wiki Whiner Central (aka Wikipedia
Review), where he's one of several participants who goes on about how
horribly corrupt, evil, and useless Wikipedia is, and how big a waste
of time it is to actually attempt to edit it... while all the while
continuing to come back with more sockpuppets and edit Wikipedia.
"Do as I say, not as I do."
--
== 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/
Bringing this up again, as it's getting silly. Daniel Brandt posts here, and
I rv him per policy as a banned user:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADaniel_Brandt&diff=1185437…
I get undone here with the comment "it is ridiculous that brandt should not
be allowed to comment on his own article":
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADaniel_Brandt&diff=1185449…
I then refactored out his commentary (Brandt's), reported his IP to AIV as
posting by a banned user, and that IP is now blocked.
My question: *if* there is concensus to allow banned users to post if "some
people feel like letting them", why not SAY that in the banning/blocking
policy? Because that seems to be... the practice.
--
- Denny
Jimmy Wales wrote
> People who are fighting the good fight here are sometimes threatened
> with a trip to ArbCom. They need our support, though.
Absolutely. To be more specific, there seemed to be some general agreemen when we aired it on the ArbCom list, a little while ago, that admin power misuse might be put on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being wheel-warring or self-unblocking. On that scale, anyway, alleged misuse of admin powers in 'defence of wiki' mode (copyvio, BLP-related etc.) comes in at 1. The AC will likely be very understanding of admins using powers in good faith to keep junk off the site.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I am afraid I would disagree with you here, Jossi. If Earle truly wanted to become an admin, then he is not disrupting the system to make a point. He wants to be an admin in his own way. It would be a point issue if he was completely uninterested in being an admin and just ran to expose the flaws in the system. While this may be an example of a decision someone would disagree with, which should be noted in the Support/Oppose/Neutral section of the RfA, it is not a classic point issue, I believe. Poor judgement, maybe; point, no.
- --Avi
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) - WinPT 1.2.0
iD8DBQFGDUFry6A/RnheoikRAtdjAJ0QIzaQ1cdW0UvimsCDmhzapzCn9wCfZ2Yk
5/hSCqQbq6DeipVhoYUs6MM=
=naZp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
jossifresco(a)mac.com wrote:
From: Jossi Fresco <jossifresco(a)mac.com>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:21:57 -0700
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Light entertainment
On Mar 30, 2007, at 3:29 AM, Earle Martin wrote:
> My intention in starting this RfA was to genuinely apply for
> adminship, albeit in my own fashion, because I am not afraid of openly
> stating what I believe in.
Basically, an excellent example of [[WP:POINT]].
-- Jossi
----
User:Avraham
pub 1024D/785EA229 3/6/2007 Avi (Wikipedia-related Key) <avi_wiki(a)yahoo.com>
Primary key fingerprint: D233 20E7 0697 C3BC 4445 7D45 CBA0 3F46 785E A229
---------------------------------
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
Full diclosure: I personally support the ATT merger.
I have been informed that the poll is dead. I am posting here, as Jimbo is
more likely to see this sooner as he's overseas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll#If_the_poll_is…
A group of users appear to be strongly opposed to any wide-scale public
polling to gauge if ATT has full support, which was requested specifically
by Jimbo. Per users such as WAS 4.25 the poll is specifically 'dead'.
--
- Denny
On 3/30/07, wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> From: Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net>
>
> A student email directory? In what way is that not original research?
I'd call that a primary source; however to link the appearance of a name
in there to a known identity is original research. For instance, if a
student directory included "Blacketer, Samuel Peter" (unlikely ;-) this
would be a primary source for saying that someone called by that
name was a student at that institution, but it would be original research
to link that name to a person about whom you know some other
information.
In this case the name Bona Mugabe didn't even appear where it was
claimed.
--
Sam Blacketer
London E15
About the current DRV... is there a reason why the article's history is
still obfuscated? Makes it hard for non-admins to judge/evaluate fairly. I
see people saying "RS were there" and others saying "No RS was there", but I
recall seeing some. However, it's currently just the word of people who can
see it against all else...
Shouldn't it be restored?
--
- Denny