On 28 May 2007 at 17:04:33 -0500, "Slim Virgin"
<slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> It's unfair to keep on mentioning that RfA because the candidate's not
> here to defend himself, but on the other hand, I'm reluctant to let
> some of these comments stand. Gracenotes's replies about this and
> other issues worried me because they seemed evasive. For example: "I
> suppose you mean attack sites as those in which personal attacks are
> made against Wikipedians, without the intent of improving Wikipedia."
> That set off alarm bells for me, because *all* these attack sites
> claim to have the intent of improving WP.
Not always... Wikipedia Review once had a thread titled "WIKIPEDIA IS
EVIL AND MUST BE DESTROYED!" (in all caps as I wrote it here). It
would be hard to accuse *that* of having an "intent of improving
Wikipedia".
On the other hand, a very small part of that site has anything to do
with "outing" the private lives of editors, either. A much bigger
proportion consists of things like having wet-dream fantasies of
Wikipedia being destroyed by (pick one) litigation, prosecution,
legislation, going broke, being destroyed by an asteroid hitting the
Earth right where its servers are (well, actually, I made that last
one up), etc... not making any actual plans to bring about such
catastrophes, mind you, but fully expecting somebody else, or God
Himself, to do it soon. Other parts consist of making fun of some of
the silly fighting that's happening on Wikipedia, which can often
make an inviting target... this very "BADSITES" debate is a source of
much merriment on that score.
--
== 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 28 May 2007 at 17:53:29 -0400, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I completely agree with Slim that this was started by someone who had some
> pretty murky ulterior motives; I'll take her word that it was a sock. The
> question is how to stanch the bad practices that are flowing from it.
Murky? Hey, that's it... it was Jeff V. Merkey who did it! Yeah,
that's the ticket...
(Just kidding... please don't sue me!)
--
== 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 28 May 2007 at 16:30:06 -0500, "Slim Virgin"
<slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Any rule applied without common sense is going to get a bad name --
On 28 May 2007 at 14:55:13 -0700, "Matthew Brown" <morven(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> I note that Gracenotes appears to have said that what he is
> uncomfortable with is a blanket ban with no room for judgment or
> common sense.
Funny how both sides keep saying they're arguing for "common
sense"... it's actually not so common, I guess.
--
== 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: John Lee [mailto:johnleemk@gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 06:21 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy
>
>On 5/28/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:
>>
>> The latest skirmish in the never-ending civil war over linking to so-
>> called "attack sites" is the one where [[User:Will Beback]] has taken
>> onto himself to purge Wikipedia of all links to the site of notable
>> science fiction editor [[Teresa Nielsen Hayden]], even though they
>> are used as reliable sources for quite a number of diverse things,
>> because in her blog she attacked Beback (she seems to have some
>> issues with Wikipedia in general).
>>
>> This has in turn spurred a renewed edit-war over whether the anti-
>> attack-site section should even be in the WP:NPA page, and the page
>> is now under protection again as a result.
>>
>> See my essay for more on the issue:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dtobias/Why_BADSITES_is_bad_policy
>
>
>Why the hell is BADSITES being enforced so mindlessly and so religiously and
>so utterly retardedly? It's completely beyond me. Anyone with a shred of
>common sense can see that the status quo, enforced by a group of
>well-meaning zealots who I am tempted to label idiots as well (but will not,
>for the sake of civility), is not serving the encyclopaedia.
>
>Johnleemk
This sort of thing, banning links to external sites, if done at all, needs to be limited to sites that extend their activities beyond criticism of Wikipedia to actions that hurt individual Wikipedia users. The blog seems to focus on publicizing Will Beback's real name which she got from ED. She is offended at his interactions with her when she edits.
Fred
The latest skirmish in the never-ending civil war over linking to so-
called "attack sites" is the one where [[User:Will Beback]] has taken
onto himself to purge Wikipedia of all links to the site of notable
science fiction editor [[Teresa Nielsen Hayden]], even though they
are used as reliable sources for quite a number of diverse things,
because in her blog she attacked Beback (she seems to have some
issues with Wikipedia in general).
This has in turn spurred a renewed edit-war over whether the anti-
attack-site section should even be in the WP:NPA page, and the page
is now under protection again as a result.
See my essay for more on the issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dtobias/Why_BADSITES_is_bad_policy
--
== 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/
The current stage of the Great Spoiler Shift is a rough guideline on
[[Wikipedia:Spoiler]] and discussion on the talk page. Phil Sandifer
has asked one very apposite question: Where is the evidence our
readers even care? None has been presented
(As one of those whose phone number seems to have become Wikipedia's
phone number, I get people calling and complaining about their *login
not working* (wtf) as well as every *other* content issue under the
sun. I have *never* had a complaint that we spoilt a work of fiction
for someone. I await a single piece of evidence, not conjecture.)
Do spoiler warnings in Wikipedia actually serve the public at all?
- d.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Slim Virgin [mailto:slimvirgin@gmail.com]
>
>The ArbCom's decision is good as a rule of thumb. Note that it says:
>"[a] website that engages in the *practice* of publishing private
>information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will
>be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from
>Wikipedia pages under any circumstances ..." (emphasis added). That
>doesn't include an otherwise decent website that happens to repeat a
>Wikipedian's name without that person's consent. It's not a good thing
>that someone has been named, but that one act doesn't tranform it into
>an attack site.
>
>People who want to be able to link to the dedicated attack sites are
>exaggerating the arguments to make their opponents look nuts. Common
>sense has to be applied, as always.
This is an accurate analysis of the situation.
Fred
Bryan Derksen wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>
>> By the way, will anon article creation *ever* be switched back on?
>> What's the problem?
>>
> A few discussions ago IIRC Jimbo said it would be reenabled when version
> flagging was implemented. Considering how slowyly version tagging itself
> is coming, I wonder if it was meant as some variant on "next year in
> Jerusalem."
My view at this point is that it should be switched back on now, partly
in hopes that this would serve as a kick in the pants to get
flagged/reviewed/stable versions implemented.
--Michael Snow
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ray Saintonge [mailto:saintonge@telus.net]
>Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 11:57 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] On living bios and the rest of the world
>
>Delirium wrote:
>
>>David Gerard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 28/05/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes, Wikipedia is not paper, but if we're going to write readable articles
>>>>not everything can make the cut. Naturally, it's notable incidents that
>>>>should get in. Trouble is that not everyone agrees on what is notable and
>>>>what isn't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Incidents are one thing - putting articles under a name when the
>>>incident is the notable thing is another.
>>>
>>>
>>I think many (most?) people agree with this in principle, but there's
>>wide disagreement over the threshold for when someone's role in an
>>incident is sufficient to make *them* notable. Serial killers on the
>>FBI's "10 most wanted" list clearly meet the threshold; some lower-level
>>executive embroiled in the Enron scandal clearly doesn't; but there's
>>plenty in between.
>>
>What those who appear to be taking a hard-line about deleting these BLPs
>for non-notable people should be taking note of is that the argument is
>not about any specific person's notability. It is about how we
>determine that they do not warrant an article. When you say that any
>admin can delete these articles on the basis of his own opinion you run
>into the fact that many of these admins have not established themselves
>as having trustworthy judgement. There has been a suggestion that
>admins who abuse the BLP excuse would be swiftly disciplined, but there
>is no confidence that this will indeed happen as quickly as the excuses
>are used.
>
>Ec
That's right. I don't want to see inexperienced administrators stepping out in that way. I would not start deleting stuff from a biography unless I was pretty sure that I both knew what I was doing and it was justified and was able to defend the action.
We don't want to set the bar too high though BLP is there for a good reason, survival of Wikipedia.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Risker [mailto:risker.wp@gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 12:21 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another"BADSITES"controversy
>
>Ah yes, I remember the last Request for Clarification. It didn't
>particularly go the way of the supporters of the "deleters," particularly
>when it became clear that subsequent ArbComm decisions specifically decided
>against the same principles. That does not appear to have had any
>particular effect on the determination of some people (well-intentioned
>though they undoubtedly are) to have this purported practice codified into
>policy. Is there a reason to believe that a second Request for
>Clarification will have a different result?
>
>Risker
Yes, we all need to keep plugging away. Wikipedia isn't going to go away, why should we? Jawboning is a lot better than a long drawn out arbitration case.
Fred
>On 5/28/07, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Ray Saintonge [mailto:saintonge@telus.net]
>> >Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 11:14 AM
>> >To: 'English Wikipedia'
>> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy
>> >
>> >John Lee wrote:
>> >
>> >>I think the Arbcom should clarify their decision to say that "attack
>> sites"
>> >>refers to sites composed of nothing but attacks - Brandt's Hive Mind
>> site is
>> >>probably a good example - and not just sites which contain attacks but
>> also
>> >>contain other content.
>> >>
>> >Not at all!! Judges do not revisit their past decisions unless there is
>> >a clear error. Any case is decided on the basis of specific facts. To
>> >go back now to change the ruling would only strenghthen the notion that
>> >Arbcom rulings form legal precedents. I don't know if we are ready for
>> >that.
>> >
>> >Ec
>>
>>
>> You can ask for clarification at
>> Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Requests_for_clarification
>>
>> I think what you will be told is that the language applies only to the
>> site involved in the MONGO case. However there is a general principle which
>> lies behind Wikipedia:No personal attacks that we should protect our users
>> from harassment, in a common sense 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
>>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>