From: daniwo59(a)aol.com
Reply-To: Discussion list for English-language
Wikipedia<wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
To: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] blocking AOL users
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 08:58:48 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from
pliny.wikipedia.org ([130.94.122.197]) by
mc12-f18.adinternal.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Sat,
30 Aug 2003 05:59:06 -0700
Received: from
pliny.wikipedia.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])by
pliny.wikipedia.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h7UCx3n32081;Sat, 30 Aug
2003 12:59:03 GMT
Received: from
imo-m08.mx.aol.com (
imo-m08.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.163])by
pliny.wikipedia.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h7UCx1n32071for
<wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>rg>; Sat, 30 Aug 2003 12:59:01 GMT
Received: from daniwo59(a)aol.comby
imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v36_r1.1.)
id 8.43.21785a6e (16781)for <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>rg>; Sat, 30 Aug 2003
08:58:48 -0400 (EDT)
X-Message-Info: vAu4ZEtdRigHscoddWhVe52f53EV3Kow
Message-ID: <43.21785a6e.2c81f988(a)aol.com>
X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 531
X-BeenThere: wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for English-language
Wikipedia<wikien-l.Wikipedia.org>
List-Unsubscribe:
<http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,<mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://pliny.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l>
List-Post: <mailto:wikien-l@Wikipedia.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe:
<http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,<mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
Errors-To: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
Return-Path: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Aug 2003 12:59:06.0412 (UTC)
FILETIME=[7EC166C0:01C36EF6]
I am an AOL user. I am also a sysop and I have been contributing to
Wikipedia
for well over a year. I have found myself blocked on several occasions
because of blocks against Michael. There is absolutely no justification for
blocking
thousands of potential users like me just because we happen to use AOL.
There
must be some other solution.
Danny
I would hate to use Danny, who is a superb contributor, and many other
potentially excellent contributions. What I would suggest is
1. Wiki FORMALLY requests that AOL produce a solution to the Michael
problem, with the threat that if they don't , all AOL users will be blocked
and the blocking of AOL will be PUBLICLY announced to the media in a
publicity blitz, in which it will be accused through negligence of placing
wikipedia and other websites in danger from vandalism. That formal request
come from Jimbo to SENIOR figures in AOL. To balance the threat, Wiki must
make it clear that it will work with AOL to do what it takes, if AOL is
willing to act. That should offer a methodology whereby, to avoid public
criticism, AOL can back down and work of a solution.
If they don't, it must be made clear that Wiki WILL act. That will require a
professional media campaign, with Jimbo and others available to brief the
media on why this extreme action is being taken. Press releases should be
released to all news organisations, including AP, Reuters and the main print
and broadcast sources in the US. The BBC in particular should be targeted.
AOL is currently mounting a major PR campaign in the UK. Having criticism of
it on the BBC both locally and internationally would be something I suspect
AOL would be desparate to avoid.
The effects of this campaign would be three-fold:
(a) to leave AOL in no doubt but that wikipedia is deadly serious about its
threat;
(b) That AOL risks damaging its own reputation, and having other websites
also publicly criticising its behaviour (there is a lot of unhappiness out
there with AOL. One credible encyclopædia attacking AOL may well lead to
other websites too going public on their problems with AOL);
(c) the campaign would earn widespread coverage for wikipedia, identifying
itself as a credible, serious encyclopædia that will not tolerate vandalism
and will not allow its reputation to be damaged by the arrogance and poor
standards of any provider.
2. A specific date, perhaps two weeks or a month from the issuing of the
press release, is stated at which point a ban will be imposed. In the
intervening period, a message is prominently displayed on the main page and
if possible in a banner on other pages, stating that because of AOL's
negligent refusal to offer a means to control vandalism to the site, AOL
users will no longer be able to enter the site from 'x' date.
3. A separate page be created explaining in detail /why/ this decision is
being taken, with suggestions to users like Danny as to how to change
provider, making it clear that wikipedia is not accusing AOL users of
vandalising site and that the problem with AOL, not them.
4. A message is created which will show up after the cut-off date to AOL
users trying to access the site explaining why they cannot gain access.
The chaos with Michael and others cannot continue. And the threat from
isolated nutters targeting the site is likely to increase as the site grows.
So this problem needs to be confronted now, rather than left drift until we
have a far bigger problem later on, one which could turn good users away on
frustration.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus