We do not have an exception to [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] which permits linking to a personal attack on an external web site.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Phil Sandifer [mailto:Snowspinner@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 04:12 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
>
>
>
>
>On Sep 20, 2007, at 4:07 PM, fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info wrote:
>
>> The issue is malicious content, our concern regardless of legality.
>
>And you sincerely think this trumps writing a complete article? In
>your view, we should not mention the name of Judd Bagley's website in
>[[Overstock.com]] for the simple reason that we think it's a vile
>piece of trash?
>
>This isn't Wikinfo, Fred. We don't have an exception to our policies
>on POV to exclude vile perspectives.
>
>-Phil
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: George Herbert [mailto:george.herbert@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 04:19 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
>
>On 9/20/07, fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info <fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info> wrote:
>> With him the only time it was appropriate not to link to him was when he had a link to edit a user's page on his main page. He soon quit doing that.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Delirium [mailto:delirium@hackish.org]
>> >Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 02:42 PM
>> >To: 'English Wikipedia'
>> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
>> >
>> >fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info wrote:
>> >> That is not the basis on which sites are banned. They are banned because they scapegoat Wikipedia editors and administrators. SlimVirgin is not to blame for the imaginary failures of Wikipedia; she, and people like her are responsible for our real success. Scapegoating her gets us absolutely nowhere.
>> >>
>> >
>> >That may be true, but we look mighty odd when we react differently to
>> >scapegoating that relates to us than we do to scapegoating that relates
>> >to others. If someone famous scapegoats people, there's not really much
>> >we can do about it. Maybe Michael Moore shouldn't be making idiotic
>> >comments, but for better or worse he's famous and he does. We have
>> >plenty of his idiotic comments reported many of our articles, but it
>> >seems that when they're about *us* suddenly we get a lot more touchy.
>> >Which is a bit too self-referential for a neutral, descriptive encyclopedia.
>> >
>> >-Mark
>
>That's a great clarification. I haven't seen anything that explicit
>in the Arbcom case proposed decision so far...
>
>PLEASE, give us some guidance that can stick, if (collective you) are
>going to make the policy any more specific.
I'm not sure we (the arbitrators) would agree on this point (that it was ever proper to remove the link to MichaelMoore.com).
And actually, we didn't necessarily agree to consider that question. Should we?
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Delirium [mailto:delirium@hackish.org]
>Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 04:40 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
>
>fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info wrote:
>> With him the only time it was appropriate not to link to him was when he had a link to edit a user's page on his main page. He soon quit doing that.
>>
>I still don't think that was appropriate. A link to Michael Moore's
>website makes sense on the article on [[Michael Moore]]. I don't see why
>we should special-case exempt ourselves. Will we also remove the link if
>he posts baseless criticism of someone not connected to Wikipedia?
>
>-Mark
That's an interesting question. Suppose he posted, say on his main page, that Agnes Marstrand Smedley of Bonanza, Colorado had murdered Mary Elizabeth Windsor of Villa Grove, Colorado on March 17, 2006. Assume Agnes Marstrand Smedley is a famed libel lawyer with a spotless reputation and that Mary Elizabeth Windsor had died of foul play that day. (Trying to make a clear case of libel here). Now, should we link to his page? Should we report his accusation in detail?
But you asked about a baseless criticism, say "Bill Clinton cheats at bridge"...
Fred
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Nonsense. Women are generally shorter than men. Women generally have a
> higher percentage of body fat that men. Women are generally more
> susceptible to breast cancer than men. All generalisations, and all
> true. I doubt you think any of them are stupid. So why is recognising
> physical differences acceptable, while recognising psychological
> differences is not?
I think the problem is that the specific assertion that was made here
("women are more likely to wander off-topic in a discussion than
men") is debatable at best and can be interpreted as insulting to
women as rational beings. I'm unaware of any body of scientific
research showing that men are more likely to stay on-topic than
women. There's certainly no scholarly or scientific consensus on this
point. To accept this claim is therefore not "recognizing
psychological differences," because the claimed difference in this
case may not exist at all. (Personally, I don't think it does.)
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
| Weapons of Mass Deception
| Banana Republicans
| The Best War Ever
--------------------------------
| Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
| http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
|
| Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
| http://www.prwatch.org/donate
--------------------------------
With him the only time it was appropriate not to link to him was when he had a link to edit a user's page on his main page. He soon quit doing that.
Fred
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Delirium [mailto:delirium@hackish.org]
>Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 02:42 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
>
>fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info wrote:
>> That is not the basis on which sites are banned. They are banned because they scapegoat Wikipedia editors and administrators. SlimVirgin is not to blame for the imaginary failures of Wikipedia; she, and people like her are responsible for our real success. Scapegoating her gets us absolutely nowhere.
>>
>
>That may be true, but we look mighty odd when we react differently to
>scapegoating that relates to us than we do to scapegoating that relates
>to others. If someone famous scapegoats people, there's not really much
>we can do about it. Maybe Michael Moore shouldn't be making idiotic
>comments, but for better or worse he's famous and he does. We have
>plenty of his idiotic comments reported many of our articles, but it
>seems that when they're about *us* suddenly we get a lot more touchy.
>Which is a bit too self-referential for a neutral, descriptive encyclopedia.
>
>-Mark
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
William Pietri wrote
> But I think we should allow people acting in good faith and with good
> purpose to discuss things that malicious people have said.
Thought police bad, serious working environment good. All space on Wikipedia - all namespaces without exception, therefore - should be used for forwarding the project. Wikipedia doesn't recognise off-wiki 'evidence' for any sort of complaint procedure or dispute resolution (I know the AC sometimes posts external links, but "don't attempt this at home" really does apply). So the question is, when would said discussions be really more than office politics, and be properly, legitimately be posted anywhere on the site?
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 19 Sep 2007 at 10:40:02 -0400, "Armed Blowfish"
<diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> Prohibiting off-topic communication is also
> discriminatory against the average woman. Men, as
> a tendency, are often more to-the-point than women.
Making generalizations about what women are like and how it's
different from men is also discriminatory against women (average or
not).
--
== 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/
> Earlier: "... Men, as a tendency,
> are often more to-the-point
> than women..."
Peter Blaise responds: And your point?
First, it's "masculine versus feminine", not necessarily "men versus
women". See the book:
"You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation"
by Deborah Tannen
before going off half-cocked (so to speak - once you've read the book,
THEN you can go off half-cocked, okay? =8^o I say that tongue-in-cheek
- doh!) See
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/002-6378027-3604807?
%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Deborah%20Tanne
n for more.
Second, if the one who decides what's on-topic or not is expressing
their masculine "report" talk, then it makes sense that all other
expressions - "rapport talk" - would, by definition, appear off-topic TO
THEM. And vice versa.
Yet I put it to you that ALL conversations, report and rapport, are
essential to a healthy, growing inclusive community, especially one that
is trying to build a knowledge reference for everybody. We all know
knowledge, like everything else, must grow or die. If any of us try to
make Wikipedia stable, and lock it down, and ban any non-spam,
non-vandal contributors, we are killing it.
Hence my perennial cry for multiple co-moderators here and on Wikipedia,
and that no one have the power to ban, especially to resolve their own
argument with someone!
This "masculine/report versus feminine/rapport" challenge is not
imaginary and we are not alone. See "..."Tech and Testosterone: A Data
Storage Titan Confronts Bias Claims,"...interviews with 17 former EMC
salespeople who claimed they had to work in a macho, frat-boy atmosphere
that included "locker-room antics, company-paid visits to strip clubs,
demeaning sexual remarks or retaliation against women who complained
about the atmosphere..."
http://newsletter.infoworld.com/t?ctl=1992C33:1CF88AC25C36E21990893F5BE2
0FABA2EFF29049075316B4
What's our choice for Wikipedia?
- Peter Blaise
Delirium wrote
>Maybe Michael Moore shouldn't be making idiotic
> comments, but for better or worse he's famous and he does. We have
> plenty of his idiotic comments reported many of our articles, but it
> seems that when they're about *us* suddenly we get a lot more touchy.
> Which is a bit too self-referential for a neutral, descriptive encyclopedia.
I don't have a worked out position on this, in the abstract.
I do know this: if we collectively get more and more drawn in to current media (paying attention to it, caring what attention we get), we are getting relentlessly pulled away from that old encyclopedia stuff (you know, what was happening in Byzantium in the year 950).
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 20 Sep 2007 at 12:38:42 +0800, "Mark Ryan" <ultrablue(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On 20/09/2007, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:
> > But this is (a) wrong (at least in the case of www hyperlinks),
> > and (b) not relevant to a site hosted in Florida, USA.
>
> It is relevant. Defamation under UK law happens where the content is
> read, not where it is hosted.
So do we have to follow US law and UK law and Chinese law and Iranian
law and... ? That seems impractical. It may even be theoretically
impossible; I read somewhere that Turkish law prohibits mentioning
the Turkish genocide against Armenians, while French law prohibits
denying that this genocide took place (parallel to French law against
Holocaust denial). It's impossible to comply with both except by not
having any mention of the historical event at all, which would be
absurd for an encyclopedia.
--
== 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/