On 24/09/2007, Earle Martin <wikipedia(a)downlode.org> wrote:
> Someone wrote:
>> No, I consider Wikipaedia an attack site, and do not wish to
>> further Wikipaedia's attacks against individuals.
>
> Sorry, but why is this person still being allowed to post here? It's
> enough of a firehose already without this kind of nonsense.
>
> --
> Earle Martin
> http://downlode.org/
> http://purl.org/net/earlemartin/
So let me get this straight. Wikipaedia has the right to emotionally
hurt, emotionally harass, emotionally abuse, paint in a false light,
defame, or violate the privacy of any individual it does not like, for
whatever reason. These individuals, however, do not have the right
to lift a finger in their defence, nor does anyone else have a right to
speak on their behalves, nor do the Chinese have a right to say
anything at all.
******
This has got to be one of the oddest complaints I've seen. All we're
talking about is a template that states one fact: that a user has been
sitebanned. That doesn't mean anyone is out to cause them grief or paint
them as evil; it usually just means they didn't adapt to site standards.
Individuals in this position most certainly do have options. They can post
an unblock request, e-mail ArbCom, contact the Foundation, or (for what it's
worth) contact an Eguor Admin like me with their evidence and request an
investigation. Occasionally I've unblocked editors on that basis.
I have a standing offer to community banned editors that I'll support their
return after six months if they don't violate WP:SOCK, don't bash Wikipedia
offsite, and if they pledge not to repeat the behavior that got them
banned. If they were banned by ArbCom instead of by the community I'll put
in a good word for them in a review request.
I also have a standing offer of two site awards to editors who make a
legitimate return from a siteban or who've been sanctioned by ArbCom. I'll
hand the Resilient Barnstar to any of them who start a new article that gets
highlighted at Template:Did you know? I've also created the Valiant Return
Triple Crown for those who satisfy a certain set of content contributions.
I've handed out a couple of those barnstars and am waiting to award the
first Valiant Return crown.
The window of opportunity usually remains open a crack and it isn't that
hard to return. I'm glad when someone does turn around successfully and I'm
doing my best to figure out how that happens and what I can do to encourage
it. Most banned editors behave in ways that keep themselves banned.
-Durova
On 26/09/2007, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk> wrote:
> There used to be actual discussions here
> that didn't promptly devolve into nonsense about privacy, ramblings
> about banning, and other thoroughly unrelated crap, you know.
> Somewhere or another, we may even have touched on an encyclopedia for
> more than three messages at a time.
You seem quite obsessed with the encyclopaedia.
So tell me, how many featured articles, good articles,
and/or other things would it cost to get a Wikipaedia-
namespace page deleted? How many to get one
blanked?
Assuming you even have enough influence to get
the things blanked/deleted without drawing more
attention to them, which you probably don't....
>>> Earlier: "... your obsession
>>> with our mailing list..."
>> I think that calling someone
>> else's contributions "obsessive"
>> merely identifies ourselves as
>> intolerant, bored, or recalcitrant.
> I think the case here is "bored".
I believe that the word "boredom" first entered our vocabulary in the
mid 1800s - quite recently, culture versus evolution wise. Apparently,
before that, people generally found things to do with themselves. Now,
we don't have time for anyone who doesn't entertain us!
Good reading at: http://www.answers.com/boredom (1,553 words from
Wikipedia included!)
Thomas, recently you've aggressively rejected suggestions that we make
an effort to keep things like blocked notices out of google.
Part of your argument seems to be that blocked people deserve whatever
humiliation we can dish out. Cases of mistakes have been made, but you
haven't seen to care.
I hope you don't plan to reference your work on Wikipedia in any job
interviews any time soon:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Thomas+Dalton+wikipedia&btnG=Google+Se…
Have I finally made a (wp:)POINT that you can understand?
As a Wikipedian in good standing fixing this won't be hard... but the
same problem can be nearly impossible for outsiders to resolve.
Wikipedia isn't judge, jury, and executioner any more than we are a
personal webhost. We should probably complexity no-index user and
user talk... but if we don't we should at least endeavor to keep
block/ban notices out of the search engines.
We must block people to keep the site running well... but using our
web presence to attack people is generally unethical, and
inappropriate even when they deserve it.
"Monahon, Peter B." <Peter.Monahon(a)USPTO.GOV> wrote:
> Response: I like to search user_talk pages at least because it a last
> bastion where over-zealous admins may not delete the content I seek. It
> is generally considered non-competitive, and therefore non-combative. I
> find it to contains a wealth of valuable, conceptualizing information.
At this point I'm bemused, but not yet baffled.
<snip>
>For me, too much information is never enough! I can go to
> http://www.bartlby.com/ or http://www.dictionary.com/ if I want a brief
> synoptic overview, and I have http://www. credoreference.com/
> subscription at work for pan-research. I come to Wikipedia to get what
> only Wikipedia offers - a community of people passionately interested in
> the same subject I am, and I want all the attendant "noise" that comes
> with it.
<snip>
And now the message seems only one step removed from the automagical
incoherence of usenet sporgery. That could be a fault with the reader,
but rereading didn't help.
Whatever the point was, it appears to be founded on a misconception.
Wikipedia is not "a community of people passionately interested in the
same subject" the writer is, whatever that may be. Or rather, it's
only that if the subject is creating a free* encyclopedia that anyone*
can edit*.
<small>* Terms and conditions apply.</small>
If there was an important point being made here, perhaps it could be
rephrased so that even over-zealous admins can understand it.
In the time I read that twice, and replied to it, I could have bodged
up something on [[Yvonne Serruys]], and perhaps found a pd image or
two to go with it. So, back to lurking for me then.
Angus
> Earlier: "...Is there a particular
> reason why user and user_talk
> need to be searchable?..."
Response: I like to search user_talk pages at least because it a last
bastion where over-zealous admins may not delete the content I seek. It
is generally considered non-competitive, and therefore non-combative. I
find it to contains a wealth of valuable, conceptualizing information.
Sometimes I skip the [Go] button altogether, and I [Search] all
namespaces, and I seek out the user_talk responses to my inquiry so I
can gather background "noise" before reading the main page that responds
to [Go]. For me, too much information is never enough! I can go to
http://www.bartlby.com/ or http://www.dictionary.com/ if I want a brief
synoptic overview, and I have http://www. credoreference.com/
subscription at work for pan-research. I come to Wikipedia to get what
only Wikipedia offers - a community of people passionately interested in
the same subject I am, and I want all the attendant "noise" that comes
with it. I'm savvy enough to tune my own signal-to-noise-ratio filter,
and I do not want someone else deleting whatever they think is
irrelevant information because *they* think I do not want to know all
that. I come to Wikipedia precisely because I DO want to know all that!
> Earlier: "... I'm here for the dialog
> with anyone who wants to read and
> possibly respond. I believe the list
> belongs to all of us, altogether,
> future readers, too. Once the 2nd
> person joins, it's a 50/50
> proposition. The third person
> makes it a 33/33/33 proposition,
> and so on...calling someone else's
> contributions "obsessive" merely
> identifies ourselves as intolerant,
> bored, or recalcitrant. I value
> every member, especially the
> provocative posts, the ones that
> make me think, and make me
> reconsider my point of view..."
> One response: "...This is a noble
> sentiment...[but]...spend some
> time on Usenet...unrestricted
> dialog...a swamp..."
Apples and oranges.
This groups is moderated to delete spam, vandalism and extended
off-topic threads. So, if someone is not a spammer, not a vandal, and
is on-topic, the moderators don't have to spend a moment dealing with
them - let their posts through. Then it's up to us users to read, or to
scroll on.
I do not understand the complaints against posts that are not spam, not
vandalism, not off topic. I scroll past many non-spam, non-vandalism,
on-topic threads because I'm not interested. Why would I ask the
moderator to block the contributors to and readers of those threads?
> Earlier: "... your obsession
> with our mailing list..."
I'm here for the dialog with anyone who wants to read and possibly
respond. I believe the list belongs to all of us, altogether, future
readers, too. Once the 2nd person joins, it's a 50/50 proposition. The
third person makes it a 33/33/33 proposition, and so on. WE must have
thousands now, right?
I think that calling someone else's contributions "obsessive" merely
identifies ourselves as intolerant, bored, or recalcitrant. I value
every member, especially the provocative posts, the ones that make me
think, and make me reconsider my point of view.
William Pietri wrote
> That's an intriguing argument. It's not hard to find almost any bit of
> information on Wikipedia, so by that reasoning we wouldn't be hurting
> anybody by shutting down entirely. All Wikipedia does is make existing
> information better available.
That's an intriguing fallacy. Actually WP is constantly adding information that is not at all easy to find, unless you already know where to look, and how to formulate your query. For example, it comes out of a book. On the other hand, it genuinely is easy to find images (which are not generally used to add information to articles, by the way, as maps and diagrams and graphs would) online, in the kinds of cases under discussion.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam