On 31 May 2007 at 16:58:23 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 31/05/07, Sean Barrett <sean(a)epoptic.com> wrote:
> > Stephen Bain stated for the record:
> > > On 5/31/07, Slowking Man <slowkingman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> I could tell you, but that would spoil it.
> > > It's alright, you can tell him now that you've warned him beforehand.
> > Harry is Voldemort's mother.
> Soylent Green is Snape!
Rosebud is Harry's broomstick!
--
== 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 30 May 2007 at 21:34:50 -0700, William Pietri
<william(a)scissor.com> wrote:
> For example, in your hypothetical case of a person maliciously posting
> links to a site with libel elsewhere on it, I'm not seeing as banning
> talk-page links to the whole site as particularly effective. Instead,
> I'd rather we got together as a community and set up a legal fund for a
> libel suit. I feel like banning links to some kook's site is just
> rewarding their desire to cause trouble, and doesn't hurt them in any
> way that matters. A well-funded lawsuit, on the other hand is plain
> scary. Speaking of which, I'm in for $500 if somebody makes your
> hypothetical case real.
Would that sort of activity violate [[WP:NLT]]?
--
== 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 31 May 2007 at 13:39:41 +0100, doc <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com>
wrote:
> How the hell did this piece of trolling get though? Moderators wake up!
Trolling it may be, but it seems to be a troll with a point... it
does in fact seem to be true that, to prove that one has been libeled
by a site that engages in "outing" an editor and stating alleged
personal facts about him/her, one would have to "out" oneself, in
order to prove that they're actually the named individual (and have
standing for a suit), as well as to prove the falsity of whichever
"facts" are being alleged to be libelous. If, instead, one were to
be suing under privacy-invasion laws instead of libel laws, different
standards would apply, but wouldn't you still have to prove your
identity, and file the suit under your real name?
There are some paradoxical complications to using the legal system to
object to such activity, which were pointed out in the form of a
request, which only became trolling because it was made rhetorically
to a respondent who has no likely prospect of following it, and this
fact was known to the writer in advance.
--
== 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 31 May 2007 at 11:16:14 +0100, "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 31/05/07, Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)att.net> wrote:
> > Just to keep the facts straight, the link in question was not a link to
> > Wikipedia Review. I know Sheldon has mentioned the possibility of such
> > links in discussion of hypotheticals, but I don't recall that The
> > Wikipedia Signpost has ever linked to Wikipedia Review.
>
> Right. So what was the reasoning given for the repeated removal of the
> non-WR link?
That it was to a site (Brandt's site, being discussed in that
article) that had in the past hosted personal information about
Wikipedia editors, and might again in the future (although it didn't
actually have such information at the time). So they changed the
article so it still *discussed* the site, but didn't actually link to
it. Brandt then retaliated by adding the personal info page back to
his site, meaning that this link removal actually increased the
amount of editor "outing" on the Internet. (He later took the page
back down again, but is threatening to put it up yet again, though
this time he apparently only wants to "out" admins, not regular
editors.)
--
== 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/
An aggressive and vocal minority of users (including some administrators who
are known to aggressively hammer 'opponents') wanting to be able to remove
on-Wiki references and links to web sites that specifically have targeted
them. In and of itself, this is not a Bad Thing on the surface. However,
their implementation and ideas do not enjoy widespread community support or
endorsement, as evidenced by the backlash they face each time they try to do
it. In spite of this, they have now extended this to:
1. Damaging articles and the encyclopedia (Will Beback and his abuse during
over Teresa Hayden's site).
2. Specifically have 'broken' two RFAs by dropping poison pills on them
(Cla68 and Gracenotes), disrupting Wikipedia for political gain.
3. They have made the notion of "attack sites" political and sociological
poison, to damage their Wikipedia "enemies".
Someone really needs to throw out the bathwater, without murdering the baby
as seems to be the intent here with the BADSITES gamesmanship. Apologies for
any frankness that cuts through undeserved AGF.
Regards,
Joe
http://www.joeszilagyi.com