On 3 Jul 2007 at 16:02:48 -0400, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:
> >
> > But the article *did* mention Encyclopedia Dramatica by name, which
> > seems to be a venal sin according to you guys.
>
> Dan, I'm no longer responding to arguments based on straw man
> policies; why would you imagine I would take a straw man argument
> seriously?
On 3 Jul 2007 at 15:26:17 -0500, "Slim Virgin" <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> That's another one of the strawman arguments, Dan. ~~~~
Do you guys complete one another's sentences, too?
I've seen plenty of straw men coming from your camp too, like the
constant mentions of the so-called "attack sites" not being "reliable
sources", something that's irrelevant when the link in question is
being done outside article space (like the vast majority of the links
that have been made an issue), and arguably untrue in the handful of
cases where the link actually was in article space (like the one that
triggered this particular thread, where the link was used as a source
for something that actually occurred in such a site, and was relevant
to a notable controversy being covered in an article). In non-
article linking, WP:RS is irrelevant, and in article linking it's a
content dispute which isn't helped by one side threatening to block
people on the other side.
--
== 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 2 Jul 2007 at 01:09:59 +1000, "Stephen Bain"
<stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Bauder could have chosen his words more carefully, but there is not
> really any contradiction. As he says, arbitration rulings are not
> policy and should not be taken as such. What he leave out is the
> implicit corollary that rulings are applications of policy to
> particular situations, and similar situations ought to be approached
> in similar
And how, exactly, is what Kamryn did "similar" to anything that was
addressed in the past rulings? She was providing a relevant
reference to an article, not engaging in harrassment or attacks.
> The crucial point is that attempts to take the rulings from the Mongo
> case and turn them into *general* rules have not been constructive.
> The ways in which some people have chosen to extrapolate from the
> Mongo case have failed to take into account the nuances of the
> rulings.
...including, in my opinion, what Bauder did in the course of
"clarifying" the ruling.
--
== 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: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com]
>Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 04:45 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkkkk site link policy
>
>On 02/07/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Information you have approved for publication in the New York Times is
>> not "private information".
>
>Define "private information".
>
>If you're referring to the linking of real names to account names
>without authorisation by the person in question, this mailing list has
>been guilty of that at times. This would then make wikimedia.org
>unlinkable.
>
>The Mongo ruling is a blunt instrument. It's not surprising it's
>hurting the encyclopedia.
It's a righteous decision applied to ED. Attempting to generalize it into a policy, whether by friend or foe, is troublesome.
Fred
On 2 Jul 2007 at 17:59:49 -0400, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Indeed. The editors mentioned in that article deliberately revealed
> their identities to the NYT, and knew the information would be
> published.
But the article *did* mention Encyclopedia Dramatica by name, which
seems to be a venal sin according to you guys.
--
== 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 3 Jul 2007 at 4:15, "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
> You're not in good faith. If I go one way, you hate it. if I go
> the other way, you hate it. The object seems to be hate.
No, not "hate", just a desire that policy decisions, from people
elected into positions of responsibility, be made on a basis of
careful consideration and deep understanding, rather than as knee-
jerk reactions based on incorrect, incomplete, and misunderstood
facts. That sort of thing disturbs me, *even* when on occasion it
leads to the "right" results (by my own ideology).
And what's the deal with all those "k"s in "attack", a word which has
only one "k" in every dictionary I know of? Do you have some really
weird mail program that keeps doing strange things to your subject
lines?
--
== 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/
Your essay presumes that a parasitic site feeding off us does not suffer lack of oxygen if we don't link to them. I suppose if a tick got on you, you would just let it suck and suck, get bigger and bigger and have a litter of little ticks.
I bet you get rid of that tick in real life.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Steve Summit [mailto:scs@eskimo.com]
>Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 07:25 PM
>To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Fred Bauder "clarifies" on attack site link policy
>
>Fred Bauder wrote:
>> I shudder to contemplate what Mr. Goodman wants for Wikipedia.
>> If a pack of dogs fall on someone after he and his ilk are in control,
>> I guess we will simply be obligated to stand by and do nothing.
>
>Fred, with all due respect, this sounds uncomfortably close to
>the fallacious arguments that keep being made in support of the
>failed BADSITES policy.
>
>1. "Site X has been doing unspeakably horrible things to Wikipedia
> editors, so obviously we need to ban hyperlinks to Site X."
>
>2. "If you disagree with this ban, I guess you condone those
> unspeakable things."
>
>#1 is fallacious because it is not obvious that banning links is
>an appropriate or effective remedy. #2 is fallacious on its face.
>
>I get the impression -- and I'm sorry if this analysis offends
>anyone -- that the primary motivation behind blanket link bans
>goes something like this:
>
>Site X (Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikipedia Review, Wikitruth,
>whoever) has done something unspeakably horrible. Unfortunately,
>what they've done is not actually illegal or anything. Also,
>there's absolutely nothing we can do to stop them, because
>they're not a site that's under our control. But we *must* do
>something, we must punish them somehow, we can't stand idly by
>and do nothing, because silence = assent, and we have to show the
>aggrieved Wikipedia editors that we care, that we're absolutely
>*not* going to let Site X get away with this.
>
>So we apply the only sanction we can, which is: ban links to
>those nasty, nasty folks. "And if you don't stop being nasty,
>we'll... ban links to you some more!"
>
>But there are several problems here: banning links to them is no
>"punishment" at all. It doesn't hurt them, it doesn't stop them,
>it doesn't make their information any less accessible. All it
>does is makes some of us feel a little better.
>
>And it also exacts a significant price, because making blanket
>bans against all links to a certain site, for any reason, is a
>draconian, censorious rule without precedent in the five pillars
>or anywhere else in Wikipedia policy (that I know of).
>
>Unthinking blanket bans do hurt the project. They shouldn't be
>necessary, if the activities they ban are already proscribed
>by existing, less-draconian policies (i.e. WP:NPA, minus the
>controversial "attack site" wording). They make it difficult or
>impossible for people to make reasonable exceptions. And they
>(the bans, that is) are just about guaranteed to end up being
>bandied about in unintended, abusive ways.
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
You're not in good faith. If I go one way, you hate it. if I go the other way, you hate it. The object seems to be hate.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daniel R. Tobias [mailto:dan@tobias.name]
>Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 04:59 PM
>To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkkkk site link policy
>
>On 2 Jul 2007 at 17:36:03 +0000, wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikime wrote:
>
>> No, I just read the link wrong. I made a mistake. Good thing I
>> wasn't flying an airplane : I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings.
>> Or stirred them up unnecessarily.
>
>Unfortunately, this is not the first time you've "stirred" something
>up unnecessarily as a result of your failure to properly understand
>policy or the facts of a situation. A couple of months ago, on this
>list, you were pushing an odd interpretation of the WP:BLP policy
>that allegedly held that, if any admin claimed that BLP was being
>violated, and deleted an article as a result, then this decision was
>unreviewable and unassailable, except by a full-blown Arbcom case,
>even if the original admin was completely wrongheaded about it.
>(And, given that somebody recently even attempted a serious argument
>to the effect that [[Jesus Christ]] was covered by BLP because he
>rose from the grave, one can't be sure of the policy always being
>applied sensibly; the checks and balances of normal policy and
>process are important for helping this.) You were claiming (with no
>justification) that all of this was provided in the BLP policy, but
>had to back down from that, and the policy now is that normal process
>such as DRV can in fact be applied, though there's a presumption in
>favor of keeping deleted in the case of BLPs anyway.
>
>I expect much better from somebody in a position of trust who's
>tasked with interpreting policy and passing judgment on Wikipedians.
>
>
>--
>== 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/
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 2 Jul 2007 at 17:49:36 -0500, "Slim Virgin" <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> > The Mongo ruling is a blunt instrument. It's not surprising it's
> > hurting the encyclopedia.
> >
> All our policies and practices are blunt instruments in the wrong
> hands. They need to be applied with common sense.
Which is rarely found among people who insist on absolute zero-
tolerance link bans regardless of context and purpose.
--
== 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 3 Jul 2007 at 01:41:24 +0300, White Cat wrote:
> Oh really? How is the follwing a constructive comment? Since when is
> demanding civility does not end well? Do I really need to have "list mod
> powerz" to request civility?
>
> "If you don't understand the importance of getting details right, should
> you be editing Wikipedia?"
It was a somewhat flippant remark, the sort that livens up this
sometimes-dull list a little, just like your own comments soon
afterward:
On 3 Jul 2007 at 01:45:00 +0300, White Cat wrote:
> Yea, I mean people demanding civility must be permanently blocked...
So apparently you're reserving to yourself alone the right to be
smart-ass in responses here?
--
== 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/