WikiEN-l September 2007

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

133 participants
274 discussions

Re: [WikiEN-l] Do NOT appeal bans, for your own sake (was Re: Admins who do not have email this user enabled (list inside))
by Monahon, Peter B. 19 Sep '07

19 Sep '07

> Earlier: "... one duty that > I would add is preventing > blatant "George-is-gay" > style vandalism ..." I think of vandalism on a list-serve more as someone being promoted to moderator and then deleting the archive. Your example sounds "off topic" to me - not about wikien or wikien-l. In other words, rather than considering the content offensive and therefore it must be punished or eradicated for that, I consider the content off topic and can simply be deleted, the poster moderated, and a note to the group saying so. Two rules: [1] No spam - delete it and unsubscribe the poster. [2] No off topic threads - delete it and moderate the poster if they repeat. Allowing only on-topic posts through, with multiple co-moderators so someone on moderation has an avenue of appeal. Simple, no? - Peter Blaise PS - Who's George, and who cares about anyone else's sexuality ... unless they're looking for a reproduction partner?

3 2

Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
by fredbaud＠waterwiki.info 19 Sep '07

19 Sep '07

For once, glad you replied (I accidentally deleted). You forget Wikipedia, on the warpath against ignorance... Fred >-----Original Message----- >From: Marc Riddell [mailto:michaeldavid86@comcast.net] >Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 09:28 AM >To: 'English Wikipedia' >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress > > >> On Sep 19, 2007, at 5:09 AM, wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote: >> >>> In the case of MichaelMoore.com I think it was righteous to remove >>> our link to them WHILE they had on their main page a link to edit a >>> Wikipedia user's page. However, the most productive response was to >>> contact them and educate them regarding the inappropriateness of >>> the link. Designating the site permanently as an attack site was >>> inappropriate (although they certainly function in that way with >>> respect to our conservative brethren). > >on 9/19/07 8:56 AM, Sheldon Rampton at sheldon(a)prwatch.org wrote: >> >> LOL. I didn't realize that the idea of "attack sites" could be >> extended to refer to anyone who attacks ANYONE. I hereby propose a >> ban on all mentions of: >> >> * Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein (because they attacked Richard Nixon) >> >> * George W. Bush (because he attacked Iraq) >> >> * The NAACP (because it attacks racism) >> >> * Heart attacks (because they attack hearts) >> >> * Thumbtacks (because they attack thumbs, or at least sound like they >> do) >> >:-) > >And, please, one more: Snacks (because they attack me). > >Marc > > >_______________________________________________ >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 >

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
by Sheldon Rampton 19 Sep '07

19 Sep '07

On Sep 19, 2007, at 5:09 AM, wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote: > In the case of MichaelMoore.com I think it was righteous to remove > our link to them WHILE they had on their main page a link to edit a > Wikipedia user's page. However, the most productive response was to > contact them and educate them regarding the inappropriateness of > the link. Designating the site permanently as an attack site was > inappropriate (although they certainly function in that way with > respect to our conservative brethren). LOL. I didn't realize that the idea of "attack sites" could be extended to refer to anyone who attacks ANYONE. I hereby propose a ban on all mentions of: * Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein (because they attacked Richard Nixon) * George W. Bush (because he attacked Iraq) * The NAACP (because it attacks racism) * Heart attacks (because they attack hearts) * Thumbtacks (because they attack thumbs, or at least sound like they do) -------------------------------- | 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 --------------------------------

2 1

Deleting individual messages in Gmail (was: Do NOT appeal bans etc etc)
by Earle Martin 19 Sep '07

19 Sep '07

On 18/09/2007, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: > As for hitting the delete key, that actually > doesn't work in gmail, if you hit delete it deletes the entire thread. For reference, you can delete individual messages using the drop-down menu at the top right hand corner of each message. -- Earle Martin http://downlode.org/ http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/

3 2

Corporate spin on Wikipedia from the RIAA
by David Gerard 19 Sep '07

19 Sep '07

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070916-leaked-media-defender-e-mails… "MediaDefender's damage control program went into full swing shortly after that. When Douglas pointed out that information about MiiVi had been added to the MediaDefender Wikipedia page, Saaf decided that he wanted it taken down. "Can you please do what you can to eliminate the entry? Let me know if you have any success," Saaf wrote. "I will attempt to get all references to miivi removed from wiki," developer Ben Ebert replied. "We'll see if I can get rid of it."" (courtesy Mathias) - d.

4 3

Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
by charles.r.matthews＠ntlworld.com 19 Sep '07

19 Sep '07

Ray Saintonge > An Arbcom debate should not be there to establish or design policy. It > is about applying principles and policy to the particular situation of > the disputing parties. Using an Arbcom decision to create policy > amounts to rule by obiter. That's basically right. ArbCom decisions have a lot to do with showing how policy is implemented (case by case, though, with no assumption of precedent). Charles ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
by fredbaud＠waterwiki.info 19 Sep '07

19 Sep '07

>I agree with Marc that NPA is more a principle than a policy. When you >try to turn principles into policy it becomes one giant game of >whack-a-mole. > >Ec More a matter of disposing of poop. We have to keep at it. You do it yourself. I know you do... Fred

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
by fredbaud＠waterwiki.info 19 Sep '07

19 Sep '07

>-----Original Message----- >From: Todd Allen [mailto:toddmallen@gmail.com] >Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 12:59 AM >To: 'English Wikipedia' >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress > >fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info wrote: >> Links to a site, and references to a site, are the oxygen of the internet. We just don't help. >> >> Fred >I agree with you. At the same time, we should ensure we're not cutting >off more oxygen to us than them. For many attack sites, there's no real >reason to link to them at all anyway. Great, no big deal, let's avoid >it. But when we're talking about a site like michaelmoore.com, and >people are proposing in any form of seriousness to ban links to it, >we've got a problem. There are tons of potentially valid reasons to link >to that site, not least in [[Michael Moore]] itself, an unquestionably >notable figure. In the case of MichaelMoore.com I think it was righteous to remove our link to them WHILE they had on their main page a link to edit a Wikipedia user's page. However, the most productive response was to contact them and educate them regarding the inappropriateness of the link. Designating the site permanently as an attack site was inappropriate (although they certainly function in that way with respect to our conservative brethren). Fred

1 0

What's going on? - Inquiry 2
by Marc Riddell 19 Sep '07

19 Sep '07

Folks, I have just spent some time reviewing the List's archives for the past several months, and it is clear something is changing and not for the good. The dialogues have become more combative, argumentative and downright mean. The individual contributions have become more aggressive, intolerant, patronizing, bullying, insulting, and downright mean. There has been a steady decline in fairness, civility and just plain listening. Also, it appears that the majority of the Members of this List are willing to scrutinize anyone or anything but themselves. What's going on? Marc Riddell

30 97

Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
by fredbaud＠waterwiki.info 19 Sep '07

19 Sep '07

Links to a site, and references to a site, are the oxygen of the internet. We just don't help. Fred >-----Original Message----- >From: Steve Summit [mailto:scs@eskimo.com] >Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 11:52 PM >To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress > >We should, yes, "guard our editors and protect them from harm", >or however the saying goes. But at the same time, of course, we >have to protect the *project* from harm. And a wrong decision >here could really harm the project (not to mention that divisive >debates like these are quite harmful, too). > >Protecting editors from harm must surely acknowledge the >existence of off-wiki attacks. WP:NPA should certainly disallow >links which serve to attack, just as it prohibits other, on-wiki >attacks. > >However: we should not, cannot, must not attempt to enact blanket >bans on all links to "attack sites", as the notorious BADSITES >policy allegedly attempted to do. It's possible to justify such >an attempted ban under the "protect them from harm" doctrine, but >a ban goes too far. It harms the project, and does *not* help the >injured editor. > >I believe there are three underlying motivations for enacting >absolute bans: > >1. We must not condone the activities of the attack sites. > >2. We must punish the attack sites. > >3. We must shield injured editors from being reminded of the > existence of the attack sites. > >It's a bitter pill to swallow, but numbers 1 and 2 hold no water. >The simple, sad fact is that THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO TO MAKE >AN ATTACK SITE GO AWAY. They exist whether we link to them or >not. They exist whether we talk about them or not. There's no >way we can punish them. And linking to them does *not* condone >them; that's not the way hyperlinks work. > >And then there's #3. I'll be accused of being a victim-blamer >here, I'm sure, but fear of being called a victim-blamer is how >we let ourselves get boxed into extreme, untenable positions, >so I'll persevere. > >Guarding our editors and protecting them from harm does not >mean that an aggrieved editor gets to make absurd demands for >protection or redress and have them followed without question. >In particular: if an injured editor declares that any reminder >of an attack constitutes a continuation of the attack, or makes >whatever declaration it is that somehow induces the rest of us >to enact blanket bans, we must politely, sensitively, but firmly >let the injured editor know that we've done as much as we can, >that the attack site continues to exist regardless of whether we >mention its name or not, and that the injured editor needs to work >through whatever remaining healing issues they have and move on. > >We mustn't twist the project into some misshapen repudiation of >its former self just because some numnutz at an attack site did >something unspeakable. You may not like acknowledging the >existence of the numnutz and the attack site, but I really, >really hate giving them the power to corrupt our project, or >worse, actively assisting and *enabling* them (by launching >into misguided knee-jerk reactions) in corrupting our project. >So, please, let's not. > >_______________________________________________ >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 >

3 2

← Newer
1
...
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
...
28
Older →

Jump to page:

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 September 2007