By the way, I didn't say that the subject is "the only person who CAN address
the particular specific instance". I said that the responsibility for doing
so, rests on them.
We are not and should not feel obligated to root all every negative statement
made about every public figure from every page. That would be a truly
ridiculous position. We can try to find some, and address some, which we *already
do*. And when *others* which can't be simply blanked out (which can by done by
anyone) are brought to the attention of oversighters, etc they can be
addressed as well. There is no need for anything more than that.
Doing what we're already doing, addresses our own feeling that we should do
something versus nothing. But we have no responsibility (note that word) to
police the actions of others. There is no crime in progress here.
Will Johnson
**************
Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in
your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000… )
In a message dated 8/4/2008 9:12:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
szilagyi(a)gmail.com writes:
> So if there was an
> article, [[Will Johnson]] about yourself, and the talk page came up near the
> top of the searches with extremely inappropriate and negative commentary
> about you for clients, possible employers, and family to find, you'd have no
> problem with this?>>
---------
That's why we have oversight.
In my opinion, short of oversight, there is absolutely no reason now or ever
to delete material which some may find objectionable. The responsibility for
what is said, rests completely on the shoulders of the speaker.
The responsibility for requesting oversight, rests completely on the
shoulders of the subject.
If the subject doesn't care, and no one cares enought to tell the subject, or
warn the speaker or anything else except speak in vague and general terms
about the "world" then there is no problem, just a theory. Hypothetical cases
don't persuade me, real-life cases might. Depends on the issue, the verbage and
the subject.
I would have no problem whatosever with negative commentary about myself, if
it was evidence-based. I've been the subject, as have we all, of senseless
carping and wailing and bitching. That doesn't bother me one bit. It's a part
of real life.
Libel is not the same as "you smell and you suck!"
I think we should appreciate that distinction.
Will Johnson
**************
Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in
your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000… )
In a message dated 8/4/2008 9:12:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
szilagyi(a)gmail.com writes:
> Since BLP is supposed to apply in even strength everywhere on Wikipedia,
> but talk pages rather stupidly tend to be a free for all, this will keep any
> nasty crap that may get editors or the WMF itself sued out of the search
> engines. >>>
> --------------
Nein my friend. You cannot be sued for bitching at someone or calling them
names. Or rather you problem *can* but the complainent would be laughed out of
court.
WMF itself cannot be sued for what *I* or *you* say. The responsibility for
what we say is ours, no one elses.
Talk pages are not a "free-for-all". If you really think this then you can't
have been around any controversial pages much. They are quite frequently
wiped, erased, edited, oversighted and so on for issues of BLP and/or libel.
Again this is just more about something which doesn't actually exist, in
order to try to get something we shouldn't really want implemented for quite
another reason. The way the system is working now is just fine.
Will Johnson
**************
Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in
your budget? Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000… )
In a message dated 8/3/2008 6:09:42 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
newyorkbrad(a)gmail.com writes:
As I understand your position, it is that as a matter of principle,
petty disputes among Wikipedia contributors (many of whom edit under their
real names), as well as negative remarks about subjects of deleted articles
and the like, should not only be preserved on Wikipedia itself, but they
must remain readily available as top Google hits for the people in question,
presumably in perpetuity. This position is not defensible.>>
-----------------
It's then a good thing I suppose that this isn't my position.
My position is that we already have internal mechanisms to handle the
objections you first broached.
We're not babysitters and we shouldn't act like cyber cops. If people call
each other hateful names, that's what they did. The entire blame for their
actions rests solely on their own shoulders. I feel no responsibility for
what someone else did, and that they did it, knowing full well that others would
and have seen it. That is the very nature of a public forum.
If a particular instance can be shown to require oversight, than it should,
and has. That we should make a sweeping change for a few minor issues is
vast overkill and in the light that there are other options.
Will Johnson
**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000… )
There is a discussion on WP:AN about this [1] which has incidentally
spilled over onto my talk page. No I'm not canvassing or asking
anybody to comment there, but I'd just like some personal feedback, so
I can at least figure out whether I've gone completely nuts or if the
concerns I've raised have some degree of merit.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#Talkpage_deletion_question
—C.W.
In a message dated 7/31/2008 3:12:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wikimail(a)inbox.org writes:
> Why is libel tolerated on the talk pages in the first place? I don't
> see many people arguing for noindexing the project pages because of
> libel.>>
> ----------
It isn't. This is just a tired old horse that keeps getting trotted out by
those who want to destroy the transparency that others have to constantly fight
to keep.
Some people don't like the idea that what they say today, can be compared to
what they said last year, and that this can be done by anyone with the
persistence to dig.
Any true libel, can and is, removed as soon as it's found. However in the
U.S. "you can't libel garbage by saying it stinks" and opinions are not libel,
so instead you get smoke screens like this trying to confuse the evidence. And
we operate under U.S. laws no matter what craziness Britain institutes :)
Will
**************
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
Hi!
A discussion about activating the WikiTimeLine extension for the english Wikipedia has been started in the Village pump of Wikipedia.
Please have a look at it and state your opinon (support or disapproval).
Here's the link to the discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Discussion_…
greetings,
Markus
_________________________________________________________________
Sie haben nie Platz in Ihrer Inbox? Mit Windows Live Hotmail haben Sie jetzt 5GB Speicherplatz - gratis! Holen Sie sich hier Ihren neuen Windows Live Hotmail Account!
http://get.live.com/mail/overview
The New York Times Magazine has an article on, of all things,
trolls. Long, but worth reading for those who are interested
in the phenomenon. (Encyclopedia Dramatica is mentioned.)
"The Trolls Among Us", by Mattathias Schwartz, published August 3.
Here's a direct link, though I'm not sure it'll work for everyone:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html>.
2008/8/1 Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com>:
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 11:52 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2008/8/1 Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com>:
>>> I go to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Central_Reclamation_Phase_3_-_2008-…
>>> and click on the play button. I get
>>> * Download file
>>> Use player:
>>> * Cortado (Java) (selected)
>>> * Still image only
>>> Using Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1a1pre)
>>> Gecko/2008072303 Minefield/3.1a1pre
>> That would be because you need 3.1a2pre, not 3.1a1pre.
> Ah, damn, I didn't see they put a1 and a2 in the same directory.
Yes, it is annoying ...
> Works nicely under a2 so far. Needs a seek bar, eventually...
File a bug. Perhaps it can become a most-duplicated ;-)
- d.
[adding wikien-l back to cc:]