"George Herbert" wrote
> Ok, so a link to an attack site is making a personal attack on the
> user being attacked.
This is vague, generalised stuff, though.
>Is making that link in the course of discussing
> an apparent violation of WP administrative policy ok (recent SV case,
> though the details turned out to not be a violation, I believe)?
Who is placing such a link, where? Is this dispute resolution, or people gossiping? We don't have a Gossip namespace.
>Is a
> link to Michaelmoore.com deletable when he has an edit link to a WP
> user or user talk page, but must immediately be restored if that edit
> link goes away?
It is fairly clear that a link to a specific page may be conditional on the page content, so in general terms, yes. If there is a link to page P, for some content, and then page P is edited so as to make the page less reliable, then the link can be removed. Remember that WP:NOT has the thing about not being a directory. We don't link to sites simply to be able to say that our articles have good coverage of relevant sites.
>Is restoring a link to michaelmoore.com while there's
> a possibly violating link from there to edit a user talk page
> disruptive by nature and blockable or bannable?
People get blocked all the time for being disruptive jerks. You'd have to look at details, here. Is someone warring when warned not to?
> It's really dangerous for Arbcom to wade in halfway. If you do, I
> can't tell what to warn people about, revert over, or what to block
> people about, where there will unambiguous agreement that I've done
> the right thing.
Well, we have our remit on the ArbCom. The _community_ has to write its own policies. It may be that the community is deadlocked. Then people may indeed want case law, but ArbCom cases are not binding precedent. They are supposed to be worked examples of the application of policy, but that's it.
> If the fact of the matter is that the community is unsettled about
> this, then Arbcom can either try to settle it, with enough specificity
> that I and other generally reasonable good-intentions people don't
> find ourselves scratching our heads next time going "Uh...", or make
> it clear that it's unsettled other than a few corner cases, and that
> AGF will still have to apply and that wheel-warring or edit-warring
> will be handled normally in grey areas where it's not clear what the
> right answer is (i.e., if you don't slow down and talk when an action
> turns out to be controversial, you will get in trouble).
My Rule Number One on this: don't force the issue. It appears that the BADSITES proponents did exactly that, and the ArbCom has to pick up the pieces. I would say that it is forcing the issue to _insist_ that any link appear on the site, if it is not either (i) being used as a source in an article, or (ii) in rare cases, evidence in dispute resolution where there is a very clear reason to be looking off-wiki. Little of what gets discussed so intensely on this issue falls under either of those. On the other hand, there is our strong culture of being an open place. But people do have to remember that no page on Wikipedia is in any way "theirs".
> Somewhere in the middle is the worst possible case, because it's still
> likely to leave reasonable admins and users unsure of what to do in an
> actual case, but aware that they're going to be judged more harshly if
> they make a mistake...
Umm. Try diplomacy: you know, tact, persuasion, gentle reminders of what we are here for. Don't do drive-by.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Sheldon Rampton wrote
> LOL. I didn't realize that the idea of "attack sites" could be
> extended to refer to anyone who attacks ANYONE.
"Attack site" is a really useless piece of terminology (up there with "wheel war"). It shortcircuits thought. What this is about is trash biography, baiting and bullying. I hope the case at least clarifies thoughts on this.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
> Earlier: "...Please, shut up and go away..."
Peter Blaise responds: Ahhhh, I've GOT to come up with an exciting
YouTube tutorial on how to take responsibility for our own happiness by
filtering our own reading using simple tools like our own
scroll-down-arrow keys and delete keys ... rather than asking someone
else to put us out of our own misery for us! =8^o
Let's suppose, James Farrar, that the "point of view" that is being linked to was an accusation that you, James Farrar, were an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, a registered sex offender, a Nazi (Plug in what ever would cause the most trouble in your personal situation). Now, how does that link look to you?
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 02:58 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
>
>On 21/09/2007, Durova <nadezhda.durova(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The reason NPOV is the most basic of principles is that without it, no
>> > source of information can be trusted, or is worth even producing.
>> > Fred, your well-intentioned policies will have the unintended end of
>> > destroying our credibility.
>>
>> I agree entirely. Let us not forget which road is paved with good
>> intentions.
>>
>> Exactly how is NPOV at odds with Fred's position?
>
>If I may quote [[WP:5]]: "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which
>means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view.
>Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view;
>presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any
>given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point
>represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the
>best view"."
>
>Allowing some points of view to be censored clearly violates this.
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
> Earlier: "... my school blocks at the
> least 95% of all proxies. I try and
> browse through wikipedia and it tells
> me that it is wikipedia is using a
> proxy server known as
> http://privacywant.info. Is this
> something that has happened to
> anyone else before, or is it just
> particular on mine.,,"
See
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=privacywant.info&btnG=Google+Search
for web references to "privacywant.info".
http://proxy.org/proxies_defunct.shtml lists it as defunct. Perhaps
someone before you hacked into the computer and used that proxy a long
time ago and the computer has never been fixed. Is it a Windows
computer? Can anyone here assist in clearing proxy settings (other than
Control Panel > Internet Options > Connections > LAN Settings > uncheck
"...privacywant..." if it's there)? Alternatively, ask around and see
if other computers at school work, and see if they use a proxy or not,
and either use another computer or copy the working proxy settings. A
daily Google search for "proxys / proxies that work from school" may
help. ;-)
Or, I wonder if your school is running software from
http://www.privacyware.com/ and you are seeing messages on your screen
from your school's own software. I do not believe Wikipedia sends out
messages saying "...privacywa..." anything, so it's probably a message
form your own school.
Back at ya, are you unable to see WikiPedia, or any part of WikiPedia,
or what? I presume you can't get into Wikipedia, is that right?
English Wikipedia? Try:
http://www.wikipedia.org/http://en.wikipedia.org/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Also, tell us your school's name, address, phone number, email and web
address - and your Principal's name and contact details. Maybe we can
hack back in and kill that filter for ya' - jus' kiddin'! ;-) No,
maybe we can contact them and get them involved in the Wikipedia project
and help them become less afraid of the unknown. "Fear of the unknown"
is a sad, sad thing for anyone in a position of influence to fester over
kids who are naturally hungry for everything that is unknown!
Tell us what you'd like us to help you with, and please follow up and
let us know how it goes.
>On 21/09/2007, Durova <nadezhda.durova(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The reason NPOV is the most basic of principles is that without it, no
>> > source of information can be trusted, or is worth even producing.
>> > Fred, your well-intentioned policies will have the unintended end of
>> > destroying our credibility.
>>
>> I agree entirely. Let us not forget which road is paved with good
>> intentions.
>>
>> Exactly how is NPOV at odds with Fred's position?
>
>If I may quote [[WP:5]]: "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which
>means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view.
>Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view;
>presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any
>given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point
>represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the
>best view"."
>
>Allowing some points of view to be censored clearly violates this.
Yes, but what this line of argument consistently fails to establish is how
the refusal to link to a site constitutes such a violation. WP:NOT#Not
censored and WP:NPOV are weighty issues, and I expect the people who advance
this argument to explain that linkage in a cogent manner.
The only issue I can see is that this would carve an exception to the
guideline WP:CITE. And if we can proscribe reasonable limits to that
exception that may be a healthy solution.
-Durova
On 18 Sep 2007 at 03:38:18 +0000, fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info wrote:
> Now, I'm not kidding...
>
> What are the major issues?
Have you read the workshop and evidence pages, and their talk pages?
The issues have been debated heavily there.
The way I see it, it's a debate about the basic nature of the
Wikipedia community... Are we going to be a free and open community
unafraid of exploring, researching, and discussing every issue
including criticism of ourselves, or are we going to bury our heads
in the sand and be afraid of our own shadows? Are we able to take in
good stride the broad spectrum of opinion about Wikipedia itself as
well as every other subject, or are we a mind-control cult that
excommunicates people it doesn't like and declares them unpersons, in
order to kill the messenger who brings ideas distasteful to some of
us? Are we a community based on consensus hashed out in free-
spirited discussion, or a repressed and secretive group with a rigid
hierarchy and lots of landmines and third-rails in the form of taboo
topics for discussion?
Unfortunately, your proposed findings in this case don't give me much
hope for an outcome that won't lead me to lose interest in
participating in and supporting Wikipedia. Your "Salt the Earth"
remedy is utterly repugnant to the spirit of what Wikipedia aspires
to be. Your idea of banning all references to "the attack site"
without actually saying what site you're talking about is downright
Kafkaesque. And your statement that "the community may not override
a fundamental policy such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks" is
absolutely and utterly wrongheaded. NPA is definitely *not* a
foundation issue; see
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_issues
NPA isn't there. NPOV is, and that's a principle that many say
contradicts the imposition of any absolutist link/reference bans.
Saying that NPA is a "fundamental policy" is like saying that a law
against selling liquor on Sunday is a basic U.S. constitutional
principle alongside freedom of speech, and can't be modified by the
legislature or referendum; that's simply false. NPA is a policy
adopted by consensus; it can be modified, reinterpreted, tweaked,
altered, limited, expanded, or even abolished by consensus, so long
as the actual foundation issues aren't impacted.
--
== 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/
Let's suppose the information being put forth is about David Goodman. Let's also suppose it is false, but not obviously so. Now how do you like it?
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Goodman [mailto:dgoodmanny@gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 12:12 AM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
>
>I am glad to have such a clear statement, to disagree with. The
>purpose of an honest encyclopedia is to take the truth from wherever
>it appears, and to refer accurately even to the works of those who
>work against the truth.
>
>If they are malicious, their maliciousness will be apparent when
>exposed. That's the basic principle of all respectable journalism. to
>hide the views of one's opponents--even one's bad faith opponents--is
>censorship. I will defend WP by all intellectually honest means, but
>hiding the views of those who attack it is not such. It's not even
>productive--that we think their views dangerous enough to unlink adds
>to their credibility.
>
>The reason NPOV is the most basic of principles is that without it, no
>source of information can be trusted, or is worth even producing.
>Fred, your well-intentioned policies will have the unintended end of
>destroying our credibility.
>
>
>On 9/21/07, fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Daniel R. Tobias [mailto:dan@tobias.name]
>> >Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 11:08 PM
>> >To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
>> >
>> >On 20 Sep 2007 at 21:33:58 +0000, fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info wrote:
>> >[long line rewrapped]
>> >> We do not have an exception to [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]
>> >> which permits linking to a personal attack on an external web
>> >> site.
>> >
>> >Which is relevant if you buy into the concept that "everything not
>> >explicitly permitted is prohibited."
>> >
>> >Anyway, the questions at issue tend to be of the form "Does the above
>> >apply in any way to a link, for a purpose unrelated to any attack, to
>> >a site that happens to also have attacks in it?"
>>
>> Depends on the site. If the site is used in a campaign of harassment, maliciously, yes.
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>--
>David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
"David Goodman" wrote
> The
> purpose of an honest encyclopedia is to take the truth from wherever
> it appears, and to refer accurately even to the works of those who
> work against the truth.
WP only takes any from "reliable sources". Yes, we can in some sort of inverted commas take from unreliable sources, to cite things. However there is some confusion possible in there.
> If they are malicious, their maliciousness will be apparent when
> exposed. That's the basic principle of all respectable journalism. to
> hide the views of one's opponents--even one's bad faith opponents--is
> censorship.
Well, (a) WP doesn't do journalism, and (b) "censorship" is rare in Wikipedia articles, though huge amounts of material is removed because it is not properly founded on good sources. Important distinctions.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
> The reason NPOV is the most basic of principles is that without it, no
> source of information can be trusted, or is worth even producing.
> Fred, your well-intentioned policies will have the unintended end of
> destroying our credibility.
I agree entirely. Let us not forget which road is paved with good
intentions.
Exactly how is NPOV at odds with Fred's position?
-Durova