WikiEN-l August 2007

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

147 participants
183 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] Michael Moore's website attacking WP editor
by Daniel R. Tobias 28 Aug '07

28 Aug '07

On 28 Aug 2007 at 03:35:33 -0400, "David Goodman" <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The women i know in my part of the professional world can defend > themselves verbally and otherwise quite as well as the men, and have > at least equal sense in knowing what they are likely to get themselves > in for. I suspect this hold true for politics and business and > reporting and other professions generally. Yes... the original posting you are replying to seemed rather sexist in its implication that women were inherently weak and defenseless and needed special protection from attackers that wouldn't be needed if we were an all-male club. -- == 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/

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Michael Moore's website attacking WP editor
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 28 Aug '07

28 Aug '07

"George Herbert" wrote > I have been tilting at the windmill of pseudonymity here for a while. Given that X is a conspicuous or several-fingers-in-the-pie admin, it is more useful to the project if X is happy to give a real name. Press work, presentations, gladhanding, looking for sponsorship - you name it, for outreach, a real name is what you want. On the other hand, voluntary projects which make good use of women as well as men (in other words, which aren't stupid) are fundamentally more likely to succeed. I take this as a given. So if a female editor wants to edit pseudonymously, I haven't the slightest problem. It is a small price to pay. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam

6 8

drama and incivility
by Aude 28 Aug '07

28 Aug '07

Some messages that come through this mailing list, such as the recent NY Times article on BLP issues, are good to receive. I like being informed about such matters relevant to Wikipedia. Others like all "Go away, you trolling fuckwit." have no place on the mailing list. Am I the only one here annoyed with such messages? Why can't we be more cordial and polite towards one another? It's gotten to the point where I may unsubscribe. The drama here, along with AN/I and other places is souring my opinion about contributing to Wikipedia. Why bother anymore? I still like the ideals behind the project and wish to continue, but would really like it if we can please tone down the drama and be more civil and cordial towards one another? If people can't control themselves, then maybe this list could use moderation. Though if the moderator is engaging such language, that's not good. -- Aude

16 23

Re: [WikiEN-l] drama and incivility
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 28 Aug '07

28 Aug '07

Stan Shebs wrote > Marc, as I believe you've said yourself in the > past, you're not especially experienced with large collaborative online > projects. Marc's role here is at times like the Fool in King Lear, and I don't think we have to ask him to stop calling us 'nuncle' and providing a different perspective which is not that of a simpleton. On the other hand I think he is at least as often wrong as right. The bit about needing a Grest Helmsman and Leader right now, to avoid the Fall of the House of Usher, is just another version of the backing track over which people have been adding samples of the latest drama for at four years (my time reading these mails). Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam

1 0

King snakes, milk snakes and viceroy butterflies: Honesty and deception
by Armed Blowfish 28 Aug '07

28 Aug '07

Deception has a long and distinguished history. Mimicry and camouflage are common in the animal world among predators and prey alike - to hide, to pretend to be dangerous, to lure prey into a false sense of security, etc. Batesian mimicry occurs when two or more species are similar in appearance, but only one has the trait (e.g. being poisonous) being signaled. Coral snakes have alternating stripes of red, yellow and black. So do king snakes and milk snakes. However, coral snakes are poisonous, but king snakes and milk snakes aren't. The plain tiger butterfly is poisonous, containing alkaloids that make predators vomit. They also fake death when attack, oozing nauseating liquid, enabling them to often survive such attacks. The palatable indian frittillary females and danaid eggfly females look much like plain tiger butterflies. Alligator snapping turtles have tongues which look like worms; if a fish tries to eat such a tongue, the fish is eaten instead. Muellerian mimicry is the same thing, except that the two species do in fact share the trait being signaled. Monarch butterflies and viceroy butterflies look much alike, and both taste bad to predators. Poison arrow frogs and Mantella frogs tend to have bright coloured spots against a black background, and they are all poisonous. Self-mimicry is where one body part imitates another. Prey can use this to increase chances of survival if attacked, and predators can use it to lure prey into a false sense of security. Owl butterflies have spots on their wings which looks like eyes. They are more likely to survive an attack on their wings than an attack on the main part of their body. Pygmy owls have false eyes in the back of their heads to fool predators into thinking they are seen. The two-headed snake of central Africa has a head which looks like a tail and a tail which looks like a head, fooling prey into believing the attack will come from the tail rather than the head. Camouflage involves imitating the appearance of the environment to avoid being seen by predators or prey. Katydids look like leaves or sometimes sticks. Countershading involves a light underside and a dark top, to counterbalance normal shadowing, and is employed by grey reef sharks and pronghorn antelope. Deception is not some barbaric human invention - it is ingrained in use by evolution for a reason - because we need it, to survive. Deception is often as natural as breathing, and we lie not only to others, but to ourselves. Honesty often requires actual effort. Notice a number of the examples above involve colour, which is not a hard signal to fake, making such signals conventional signals. Basically, it is much like signaling that you are strong by wearing a 'Weight lifter' t-shirt - not hard to fake, and if too many do fake it, the signal may become worthless. According to the handicap principle, a signal may be difficult to fake if producing it requires the trait being signaled. Having muscles tends to require being strong, hence having big muscles is an assessment signal for being strong. Moose have large antlers, which requires strong bodies to support, hence antlers are an assessment signal for strength. The following questionnaire is helpful: 1. What is the cost of sending the signal if honest? 2. What is the cost of sending the signal if deceiving? 3. What are the advantages to the deceiver? 4. Statistically, how reliable is the signal? (May require experimentation.) 5. What is the cost of observing the signal? 6. What is the cost of being deceived? If the cost of sending the signal if deceiving is significantly higher than the cost of sending it if honest, and the advantages to the deceiver are not too great, it should generally be fairly reliable. However, the cost of observing the signal relative to the cost of being deceived and the reliability of the signal itself is important to deciding whether to bother. References * 'The Arts of Deception: Mimicry and Camouflage'. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0306.htm * Zahavi, Amotz. 'The fallacy of conventional signaling'. 1993. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0962-8436%2819930529%29340%3A1292%3C227%3A… * Donath, Judith S. 'Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community'. Communities in Cyberspace. MIT Media Lab. 1996. http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

11 26

Re: [WikiEN-l] Jayjg is not AWOL
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 28 Aug '07

28 Aug '07

"Stephen Bain" wrote > It seems to me that a useful way to not feed the trolls is to not call > them trolls. De jure, cslling someone a troll is a personal attack (an ad hominem argument for paying them no attention). De facto, it is a message to the rest of the list: any successful troll can get half the posts saying "no, go on, this is interesting" in a situation where there is smoke without fire and no smoke. "Do not feed the trolls" means that logic alone cannot kill such a thread. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Jayjg is AWOL
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 28 Aug '07

28 Aug '07

Marc Riddell wrote > on 8/28/07 10:17 AM, Puppy at puppy(a)KillerChihuahua.com wrote: > > > I note you are ignoring my plea to keep this thread on-topic. > > No, I have rejected your attempts to bury this incident. Please note the origin of this list: as a forum off the wiki to discuss what happens on the wiki, under different rules. No Personal Attacks is not policy here. You may think it should be, and in the past I have argued for moderation of the list which would be more strict. But actually making a mountain out of a molehill is in itself provocative. Considering the mail is archived, nothing gets buried. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Jayjg is AWOL
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 28 Aug '07

28 Aug '07

"James Farrar" wrote > To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Jayjg is AWOL > > On 28/08/07, Puppy <puppy(a)killerchihuahua.com> wrote: > > David's has the advantage of shock value, which > > commands attention. > > However, as a moderator of this mailing list - indeed, probably the > most prominent such - it is imperative that David hold himself to the > highest standards of behaviour lest the membership of the list at > large believe that it is appropriate to make such comments. Heh. The point is valid, but I think you would probably have DG's full cooperation if you could get him replaced. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Jayjg is not AWOL
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 28 Aug '07

28 Aug '07

"James Farrar" wrote > It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? > > I occasionally play devil's advocate > You are a troll > He has been placed on moderation We are not amused You (plural) misunderstood a simple request They can read all this nonsense on Nabble. Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Jayjg is not AWOL
by Daniel R. Tobias 28 Aug '07

28 Aug '07

On 27 Aug 2007 at 23:31:48 -0400, "Ron Ritzman" <ritzman(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/27/07, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > It seems to me that a useful way to not feed the trolls is to not call > > them trolls. > > You're right, a better term for this is "drama whore". "Troll" (and its sometimes-creative synonyms and variants) seems to be a special exception to the "No Personal Attacks" policy, as people have no restraint from using it freely against anybody who has something to say that they'd rather not hear. -- == 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/

3 2

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
19
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l August 2007