G'day The Mangoe,
On 5/31/07, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
You read that, and assumed you'd scored a king-hit on SlimVirgin. The problem there is not that you need to apologise to Sarah (though you do); it's that ... *you read that and assumed you'd scored a king-hit on SlimVirgin*.
Well, you seem to have concluded that you have scored a "king-hit" on me. But (as seems to be the routine irony) you have committed the same sin that I did: you've jumped to a conclusion based on your preconceptions. If you had followed the thread on WR about the incident, you would have seen that the WR-ites didn't think that SV wrote the smoking gun passage.
I never said that the WR-ites thought SV wrote the "smoking gun" passage. I said that *you did*. Is it fair to say that you did, indeed, believe that SV was responsible for the offending passage?
Which leads us to the three backstories here. One is the paranoia. "Assume Good Faith" is a dead letter in this controversy, paid lip service only when suspicions are voiced against oneself. It's particularly noticeable in the constant claims that so-and-so relative newbie "knows too much not to be a socpuppet." I've gone back and looked at DennyColt's first edits, and at mine. They aren't that radically different. This business of looking at edit patterns is simply too much of a witch hunt, and rather too much like thorwing them in the river to see if they float.
I don't intend to comment on DennyColt's suitability as a sockpuppet candidate, nor yours, but I do agree that simply examining someone's edit patterns is a subjective test, and often not a particularly useful one.
The second is that it is obviously OK to make personal attacks on people who aren't editors, and therefore seems to have become OK to attack editors who show any sympathy for those attacked. That's in line with the recent line in BLP that Wikipedia has no moral obligation to the subjects of its biographies, but it's repugnant and hypocritical.
"No personal attacks" does not exist because it's morally wrong to make personal attacks (it may be, or it may not be). We have a policy against personal attacks because we recognise that allowing them on-wiki leads to a poisonous editing environment.
If I call you a dickhead on-wiki, I'm violating "No personal attacks". If I say on the mailing list that people who enthuse about WR are suspect, because WR is terrible for so many reasons, then I may or may not be making a personal attack --- but I'm not violating any Wikipedia policy. It's not hypocritical to adjust your norms depending on your environment, any more than it is to fart while alone even if you'd never dream of doing it in front of the Queen.
The third is the big one: the politics. Many, many people look upon Wikipedia as an object example of "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" (or "Lord of the Flies", if you prefer the monosyllabic version), and in my opinion, they're right. I started by editing in some very
I understand both references, but I appreciate the effort you've made to ensure I don't miss the point. Thank you.
And I do agree with you about the Tyranny of Structurelessness; all it means is that the powers-that-be are hidden from view, unknown, perhaps even to themselves. And nobody is accountable. This is a constant risk on Wikipedia, and there are parts of the project that have already succumbed.
And no, I don't tend to wade into controversial articles, either.
<snip/>
Jayjg's "rape victim" line was posturing. Nobody is being raped, and the only stalking I have seen evidence of in the present is the mass banning of a long list of accused sockpuppets. These days, I hardly
That, and your own checking through to see who SlimVirgin is, and informing her of that fact ... were you surprised to find that this annoyed her?
My understanding is that Jayjg's "rape victim" analogy was made in reply to a comment that anyone who is outed online deserves it, because she should have been more careful about leaving "breadcrumbs" out there. In that context, it's quite apt. It's simply taking a disgusting comment, and making it clear to all involved just why it is disgusting.
If he's spread out to start comparing outing to rape, then, sure, start complaining about his hyperbole. Otherwise, well, try not to make any "she deserved it really"-type comments and it shouldn't affect you. So far I haven't noticed you saying anything of the sort.
<snip/>
Nor would I argue for a mass amnesty for the WR-ites-- heck, there's a couple I wish the WR admins would ban from their own site. The thing is, the political need to assign me to a faction has overwhelmed the facts, just as it occaisionally does for Dan Tobias, who is from time to time lumped with the WR-ites in utter disregard for his near-contempt for them.
I don't recall saying that individual WR-ites are scum because they contribute to WR. In the very post you reply to here, I said that some individual WR-ites are quite reasonable. I listed three, because I only know of three, but I concede there may be more.
I mentioned those offences WR have committed, those I know about. I mentioned the unwillingness of even the reasonable WR-ites to agree that these offences were Bad Things. I didn't categorise you, I simply created a category. If you choose to place yourself inside it, that's your look-out.
I don't know who you are, Mr. Gallagher, but if you are really a student in Canberra, I was participating in on-line discussion about the time you were *born*. You are hardly the first person to call me names.
Well, being a student in Canberra doesn't necessarily make me a youngster[0]. It doesn't matter, though, since, as you have undoubtedly discovered by now, I am spoofing my email account, and am really a blue-rinsed grandmother living out her days in a council flat in Essex.
I remember walking ten miles uphill through the snow to revert Kibo vandalism with punch cards ...
[0] Many of my classmates, if I had classmates, are/would be in their fifties and sixties. It's almost inspiring.