The Melian Dialogue:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm
In the Melian dialogue, the Athenians represent
realism, while the Melians represent idealism.
The Athenians are straight, rather than attempting
to justify their reasons in terms of what is right
and fair, they are honest about their motivations.
'For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with
specious pretences- either of how we have a right
to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or
are now attacking you because of wrong that you
have done us- and make a long speech which
would not be believed'
'We will now proceed to show you that we are come
here in the interest of our empire, and that we shall
say what we are now going to say, for the preservation
of your country; as we would fain exercise that empire
over you without trouble, and see you preserved for
the good of us both.'
All the while, the Melians take the moral high ground. In
the end, the Melian men are killed and the women and
children are enslaved, and it is as the Athenians said,
'since you know as well as we do that right, as the world
goes, is only in question between equals in power, while
the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they
must.'
On 25/09/2007, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25/09/2007, Charlie <charles.baker(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/25/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> That would suggest that I accept that "human rights" have some kind of
>>> real existance beyond people's power to enforce them. I do not.
>>
>> Hope this isn't too off-topic here, but do you really mean this about
>> human rights?
>>
>> Do you mean that in the sense of the rhetorical flourish, that human
>> rights don't exist if we don't enforce them, so lobby your government?
>>
>> Or do you literally mean that there is nothing more to human rights but
>> our enforcement of them?
>>
>
> Yes. This can be demonstrated by examining the situations where
> enforcement breaks down.
>
>> Because if it is the second, then what human rights we have depend
>> entirely
>> on the local governments willingness and ability to enforce them. If a
>> government doesn't enforce a right not to be murdered, for example, how
>> can you make the argument that they should, if the right has no existence?
>> To what principle can you appeal, if not the prior existence of a right?
>
> The principle that I personally don't want to get killed and I'd
> rather those who I chose to care about don't get killed. Thus it is in
> my personal interests to work with others who don't want to get killed
> to neutralise those who go around killing people.
>
> Enlightened self interest. It gets more complex with balanced
> interests and the like but this isn't the time or place.
>
> --
> geni
Yes, I think this would be a case where a simple re-threading would be
absolutely required without exception.
-steven
On 9/25/07, Charlie <charles.baker(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hope this isn't too off-topic here, but do you really mean this about human
> rights?
>
> Do you mean that in the sense of the rhetorical flourish, that human rights
> don't exist if we don't enforce them, so lobby your government?
>
> Or do you literally mean that there is nothing more to human rights but our
> enforcement of them?
>
> Because if it is the second, then what human rights we have depend entirely
> on the local governments willingness and ability to enforce them. If a
> government doesn't enforce a right not to be murdered, for example, how can
> you make the argument that they should, if the right has no existence? To
> what principle can you appeal, if not the prior existence of a right?
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
On 25/09/2007, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:
> On 24 Sep 2007 at 20:45:31 -0400, "Armed Blowfish"
> <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Perhaps all users should be prohibited from contributing under or
>> revealing their real names on WP, to prevent this sort of thing from
>> happening. Those who have already done so could have their
>> usernames changed and their names removed from WP.
>
> That would be a step in the entirely wrong direction. Wikipedia
> makes too much of a fetish out of preserving "anonymity" as it is, at
> the expense of accountability. While I wouldn't want to go as far as
> Citizendium in requiring real name use all the time, the opposite
> approach you're advocating, of using all fake names, is even worse.
>
> --
> == 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/
Firstly, you do not know what anonymity is. Anonymity is
different from pseudonymity. Anonymity means you do
not even use a fake name - your contributions each stand
separately, indistinguishable from other anonymous
contributions, and you do not build a reputation.
Pseudonymity means you do use a fake name, a pen name
or whatever. This means your pseudonymous contributions
are distinguishable from contributions made under other
pseudonyms, and you do build a reputation under that
pseudonym.
IP addresses can be pseudonyms too, albeit ones that do
not map 1:1 to human beings (but then, hey, neither do
pseudonyms, or even real names). IP addresses are not
securely pseudonymous, and can generally be traced
back to human beings.
In order to support anonymity, Wikipaedia would need to
allow editing without logging in via anonymising networks
such as Tor. Wikipaedia does not do this. Not even allowing
logged in edits via such anonymising networks, Wikipaedia
does not support secure pseudonymity either.
The security and accountability differences between anonymity
an pseudonymity are significant. When anonymous, even if
your identity is discovered for one of your anonymous
contributions, it cannot be discovered what other anonymous
contributions you have made. This could be of great importance
for Chinese dissidents. If, however, you are pseudonymous, if
the real-life identity of the pseudonym is discovered, all
contributions made by that pseudonym can then be linked to that
real-life identity, which could be bad news if one is, for example,
a Chinese dissident.
Note that there are different kinds of accountability - accountability
in the online arena and accountability in the real world. Examples
of online accountability include killfiles, yelling, blocking, banning,
emotional harm, emotional harassment, defamation, etc. Examples
of offline accountability include suing, stalking, physical harm, more
extreme emotional harm, defamation resulting in difficulty getting
jobs, etc. Those who are anonymous are not accountable in all but
the mildest of ways. Those who are securely pseudonymous are
accountable only in online ways, so long as they remain
pseudonymous. Those whose offline identities are known are
accountable in all ways that they can be.
Probably the only form of offline accountability that is ever desirable
is the ability to be sued. Firstly, if you want to sue someone, I
suggest you start by privately telling him or her why, how much you
want, what interest rate, and, if the person is pseudonymous,
whether you will accept pseudonymous payment. Court isn't good
for anyone - everyone loses except for the lawyers. In any case,
how many of us do you think are accountable in the sense that if
sued for any significant amount of money, we would not be forced
to declare bankruptcy? Note that in the UK, Wikipaedia itself can be
held accountable for failure to remove defamatory information. See
Defamation Act 1996 and Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/1996031.htmhttp://www.cyber-rights.org/documents/godfrey_decision.htm
As for other forms of offline accountability - privacy can literally save
lives, jobs, and physical well-being.
Online accountability itself can go too far - even a pseudonymous
entity does not deserve to be defamed. Okay, so a pseudonymous
entity cannot sue and remain pseudonymous, but it is better to
defame a pseudonym simply because the opportunity for retaliation
is less? That is the logic of a coward.
Now, what advantage is there in an unverified 'real name'? It could
be a pseudonym which merely looks like a real name, which does
have a long and distinguished history. Baroness Karen von
Blixen-Fineck, for example, published under the pseudonym Isak
Dinesen. Male pseudonyms have most likely been used by a number
of women throughout history to evade sexism. Men have also used
pseudonyms, e.g. Samuel Clemens / Mark Twain. But in any case,
why encourage unverified real names, which may be pseudonyms,
rather than pseudonyms which are obviously pseudonyms. Certainly,
there may be more security in a pseudonym which looks like a real
name, as people may not bother to try to out you if they think you are
already outed. On the other hand, it could be a way to defame
someone who really does posses that name, as was pointed out
earlier.
On 24 Sep 2007 at 20:45:31 -0400, "Armed Blowfish"
<diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps all users should be prohibited from contributing under or
> revealing their real names on WP, to prevent this sort of thing from
> happening. Those who have already done so could have their
> usernames changed and their names removed from WP.
That would be a step in the entirely wrong direction. Wikipedia
makes too much of a fetish out of preserving "anonymity" as it is, at
the expense of accountability. While I wouldn't want to go as far as
Citizendium in requiring real name use all the time, the opposite
approach you're advocating, of using all fake names, is even worse.
--
== 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/
The link at the bottom of the page does not work, and is billed as "an uncorrected copy".
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: Oskar Sigvardsson [mailto:oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 06:26 PM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Cassiopedia?
On 9/25/07, Casey Brown <cbrown1023.ml(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I coulda sworn we sent them a take-down notice or something of the like.
> Actually, I think there used to be worse things on there that made it seem
> like they were Wikipedia, but we *did* send them an e-mail and they took it
> down.
They are reasonably within limits (they license under the GFDL and
they provide a link at the bottom of each article to the original
wikipedia page) so even though we might have grounds for it and we
really want to, lets not. Free Culture is free because we don't sue
people over tiny legalese details in the GFDL.
Being free sometimes has downsides, and this is one of them.
--Oskar
_______________________________________________
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
Steve Summit wrote
> What's troubling is that lots and lots of not egregiously
> infringing nonfree images, uploaded and integrated over years of
> time by thousands of participants, and hitherto accepted under
> those hammered-out compromises, seem to have disappeared over
> the past couple of months (due to the efforts of just a few).
Well, of course, we have also had complaints here that WP is very slack on the topic of non-free images.
Let's see, can we get a sense of whether this perceived large-scale takedown affects more than a couple of per cent of the total of the images; and whether this is mostly about well-exposed people, for their bios? Or are there cases (such as book or album covers) where arguably the removal of a fair-use image leaves the article looking scantly.
I have to say _I really don't care that much_ about the bios case. Because the biographies of living people are always causing some or other trouble, and my resolution is to get on with the rest of the encyclopedia. It is far too easy to become sucked in.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
-----Original Message-----
From: William Pietri [mailto:william@scissor.com]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 06:18 PM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Cassiopedia?
George Herbert wrote:
> On 9/24/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.cassiopedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
>>
>> What on earth is this?
>>
>
> Quantum-physics-fringeists mixed with 9/11 conspiracists. Jacques Vallee.
>
> *shrug*.
Heh. I came across these guys recently and ended up with the same
notion. It's hard to actually find where they explain what they're up
to, but I eventually found it. One of their principles:
starting nodes that come from the core competencies of the current
team (Gurdjieff, history, Zionism studies, psychopathology,
comparative religions, Mouravieff, Fourth Way studies...)
(from http://www.cassiopedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Cassiopedia )
Generally when I see a list ending with "..." it's a sign that the
things before it form an obvious pattern. I'm having trouble naming the
next item in that sequence. :-)
That would be Kabbala...
Fred
They also talk about creating articles on topics from the "SOTT
Glossary", which appears to be a reference to a magazine/webzine called
"Signs of the Times". One of the recent SOTT articles examines the
theory that the WTC 9/11 collapse wasn't due to jetliners, but rather
space-based death rays. Their conclusion? Allow me to share the
priceless closing paragraphs:
One thing is clear: the UFOs themselves are not under the control of
the military - or anybody else. But that the Consortium continues to
debunk and cover it up - in the face of its violations of their own
airspace - suggests to us again the analogy of arrogant and powerful
Masters of Reality, aided and abetted by their military and
intelligence organization servants who, all the while they are
obeying the powerful overlords, which very well may include the 9/11
Attacks and war with Iraq, Iran, and God knows who else, seek to
keep everything quiet while they try desperately to discover the
secrets of power so as to arrogate it to themselves. And it seems
evident that, in the present time, the game is afoot in the citadels
of Power and Secrets.
We don't know - and cannot know at present - whether some super
secret beam weapon was used to take down the Twin Towers on 9/11;
but it is possible. And frankly, it is the one explanation that
seems to cover all the anomalies. Bottom line is: Something is
happening, there is a schedule, and the servants of the alien
masters are pushing an agenda that few of us understand. They are
trying to cement controls, to solidify their power base, because
/Something Wicked This Way Comes/.
(from
http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/articles/show/139903-Ultra-terrestrials+a…)
For connoisseurs of kook literature, I also recommend the comments on
that article.
Anyhow, they appear to have imported only the final history entry for
each article, which bothers me a little from the licensing perspective.
But I imagine it's not a huge issue.
William
--
William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri
_______________________________________________
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
On 24/09/2007, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/24/07, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not dragging individuals into this. But
>> surely you have noticed that if someone
>> breaks some bureaucratic rule (most of which
>> have nothing to do with legal issues) and
>> someone else draws attention to it, it doesn't
>> matter how much that person has contributed
>> to the encyclopaedia (images, text, good
>> articles, featured articles, whatever), and the
>> person gets banned?
>
> I haven't noticed. Most bans are often justified;
> we are not a democracy, we do not have due
> process (which is pretty much a legal concept
> specific to the US, as most other countries have
> different approaches - and besides, we are not
> a country).
Once Law was sitting on the bench,
And Mercy knelt a-weeping.
"Clear out!" he cried, "disordered wench!
Nor come before me creeping.
Upon your knees if you appear,
'Tis plain your have no standing here."
Then Justice came. His Honor cried:
"Your status? -- devil seize you!"
"Amica curiae," she replied --
"Friend of the court, so please you."
"Begone!" he shouted -- "there's the door --
I never saw your face before!"
G.J.
> If the community consensus wants you gone, it does
> not matter whether you have done something wrong
> or broken any rules, you're tossed out.
I agree, that is exactly how it works. Hey, it's your
(you == Wikipaedia) website, if you want to ban people
rather than thanking them, fine.
Writing a note on top of Google saying, 'ATTENTION
FUTURE EMPLOYERS: [Banned user] CANNOT
POSSIBLY BE AN ASSET. DO NOT HIRE', or, if the
user did not reveal their real name, attempting to
destroy the user's online reputation, goes too far.
> We can debate whether this is desirable, but it's
> worked pretty well.
(text moved from below)
> It's imperfect, it's definitely not what I like to see.
> But the point is, it works, and I've yet to see any
> ideas that would be more effective without causing
> so much controversy and chaos as to make the costs
> outweigh the benefits.
If you ban people who were good contributors, that's
your loss. But punishing them beyond that... no,
sorry, the cross-site flame wars definitely are not
working. And, when you punish people beyond not
letting them contribute, you stoke the flame wars with
the other attack sites (WT, WR, et al.)
> If one admin does not like what's going on, then
> that admin unblocks (community bans only work if
> no admin is willing to lift the ban). Wheel warring
> and/or discussion may ensue, and after all the
> ridiculous crap that goes around comes around, we
> either ban or unban and get back to work on the
> encyclopaedia.
If the person even wants to contribute after being
treated like dirt....