On Nov 21, 2007 6:10 PM, <joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:
> >> Furthermore, this isn't the only
example. I'd love to see for
example an
> >> explanation of how the Making Lights
fiasco was somehow a
result of the
> >> "anti-BADSITES
proponents".
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand this point.
>
> It is relevant to the original point at the start of this
subthread. If you
> recall, the assertion was made that often the
act of removing
links creates
> more drama than it helps with two examples,
Black's blog and Making
> Lights. You
> asserted that wasn't the case and that the drama in such
situations was
the
> fault of the "anti-BADSITES
proponents". I'm attempting to
> understand how the
> Making Lights problem was caused by the "anti-BADSITES proponents".
Well, the original action wasn't, of course, but the constant
flag-waving by the "anti-BADSITES proponents" of an error made long
ago and quickly rectified and apologized for, is, of course, designed
for heat not light. People make mistakes, even when applying actual
policies - for example, people are regularly blocked for 3RR when they
haven't actually violated 3RR. We don't then repeatedly bring up those
mistakes as "proof" that the policies are bad.
See David's reponse to this. The fact hat Will seemed to maintain well
after the
fact that this was still a problem and the fact that Tony, Mongo and Thuranx
continued to push for some form of BADSITES means that it wasn't nearly
as much
a strawman or as dead as it should have been.
See above. Dead horse, three non-admins.
Yes, three editors two of whom are prominent and
are former admins with many
political ties (and let's not pretend that doesn't matter), and again
they were
only the most prominent.
Insisting that editors are "prominent" and have "many political
ties"
feeds into the conspiratorial worldview promulgated by banned users on
less than savory websites. Please don't try to build these people up
into some frightening powerful force; they're just 3 editors, no less,
but certainly no more.
It doesn't require conspiracy mongering to see that some editors are more
influential than others and that some have more political ties than others (I
should know. I'm an influential editor with a variety of political ties).
Um, o.k. It still seems to pretty much boil down to MONGO the scary.
> >>
(Incidentally, as someone who was and remains
> >> strongly opposed to BADSITES I object to your characterization of
> >> such editors
> >> as part of an amorphous "they" who desire "drama").
> >
> > "BADSITES" itself is the rallying cry. So far we seem to have a whole
> > bunch of people who have been going around for months now VERY LOUDLY
> > "opposing" something that was proposed as a strawman, and apparently
> > supported as policy by one editor.
>
> We have quite a few more editors than a single one. The fact is that
> many people
> are understandably worried that something like BADSITES is going
to continue
> either as policy or as de facto behavior. I
do wish that people
> wouldn't focus
> so much on BADSITES and indeed most reasonable editors aren't doing so.
Then why does it keep being mentioned again and again and again?
Again, because people are worried.
If they were just worried, they'd simply make rational arguments.
Constant cries of BADSITES and of "remember the Making Light
incident!" are ways of short-circuiting rational thought.
No, they are a way of saying "Hey look. We had this really bad example
that got
us bad press and made a number of our natural supporters such as Cory Doctorow
really unhappy with us. And it harmed our uncyclopedia content. Let's be
careful that new policies don't have the same problem."
Bad press? New York Times, that sort of thing? It looked like a
tempest in a teapot to me. It's true, we are a top 10 website, but I
think it tends to make us think our little wikidramas are far more
public than they really are. Believe me, the press (and certainly
academia) aren't going to start thinking our articles are well-written
or trustworthy based on whether or not we link to some conspiracy
theorist's blog. Really.
Look at the history and talk page of NPA
where we've had repeated attempts now to insert language very similar to the
original BADSITES language. It is getting mentioned because to some extent
people have been (at least until a few days ago) pushing for it.
In your view I'm sure that it's "very similar to the BADSITES
language". How do the proponents view it, though? How do outside
observers view it? Is it close to BADSITES, or close to LOVELINKS, or
somewhere in between? There's no question that Wikipedia needs to find
an effective way of dealing with harassment of its volunteers; as long
as Wikipedia is a top 10 website, and remains "The encyclopedia
anybody can edit", this will remain a problem.
I have an idea. Why don't you look at what Mongo et al. said on the talk page
and then see if you can point to any way that anyone would think it was at all
different.
MONGO again. Lesse, he posts to the talk page, and within five hours
Dtobias shows up crying BADSITES! That pretty much shuts down rational
discussion. Oh, and Dan provides yet another link to his essay "Why
BADSITES is bad policy". Some more back and forth, and then WR
regular Viridae opens an ArbCom case about MONGO in an attempt to shut
down dissent, err, sorry, I mean discuss perceived behavioral issues.
>>
After
>> BADSITES failed Mongo and Thuranx then tried to get nearly identical
>> language
>> in NPA.
>
> So it was down to two non-admins then. Did they think the language was
> "nearly identical", or did they think it was along the lines of
> LINKLOVE?
You can read the talk pages. From the description
their it seemed to me that
they thought it was identical to BADSITES.
I'd rather let them speak for themselves, rather than have their
opponents speak for them.
Ok, so why not ask them?
I don't regularly correspond with either, and I'm not tempted to speak
on their behalf. I was suggesting that others not attempt this either.
> But as
> long as the specter remains people are going to be understandably upset.
No, not understandably. It was a strawman, plain and simple, that was
never policy. It's been used quite effectively for months now, but
only as a strawman (or a rallying cry).
Um, what? It is hardly a strawman when two former admins are strongly
supporting
it.
Did you read what you said? "Two former admins are strongly supporting
it". There are over 1,000 admins on Wikipedia, and you've come up with
two former admins, who aren't even supporting BADSITES, but rather
something you've labelled as BADSITES.
Gah. Both supported BADSITES. Read above and look at their talk page comments.
When BADSITES failed Mongo supported something which was functionally
identical
to BADSITES.
From your anti-BADSITES perspective.
And considering of 1000 admins what fraction are
active on most
policy pages (50 at most?) 2 isn't a non-trivial amount.
2 *non*-admins. Out of many thousands of editors.
Keep in mind that I'm
not arguing that there was a majority for it, merely that there were
people who
were established editors who didn't see it as a strawman.
Yes, it fooled a number of people. It seems to me it fooled far more
people on the anti-BADSITES side than on the pro; the former have
certainly gotten vastly more mileage out of it.
> As
> soon as we get LINKLOVE approved (that name does sound very
> Orwellian, can we
> get a better shortcut?) this will die out.
Right, the policy created by banned sockpuppets and IP editors. That's
how effective that BADSITES strawman was, actual policy editors can't
even go near any policy pages attempting to deal with outside
harassment any more.
What do you mean? David Gerard and others have had no problem
discussing this.
Because no-one is going to accusing David of being a Communist, err,
BADSITES supporter.
Um, what? Is this some sort of claim that BADSITES proponents are being
Mcarthied? Forgive me if I don't see much evidence for that claim.
I don't think you would be particularly sensitive to it, given your
own feelings on the matter.
And
frankly, who made a policy has nothing to do with whether or not it is a
good idea. Daniel Brandt could say "1+1=2" and the fact that it came from
Brandt would have nothing to do with whether or not the statement is true.
It's a bad idea to have sockpuppets of banned editors writing our
policies; that should be common sense, I would think.
Yes, but if a user is banned happens to propose a kerner of a good idea
there's
no need to reject it based on the who it came from.
But it wasn't proposing a kernel of a good idea, it was dozens of
edits to create a policy.
(And point of fact PM is
not a sockpuppet of a banned user so...)
User:BenB4 was, and he created the page, and was by far the single
largest contributor to the page, so...
As for PM, that's only a technicality; he was a sockpuppet, and only
unbanned so he could participate in an ArbCom case about his banning.