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.
Ok, this is my last comment about something: it is very hard to call
something a
strawman when it supported by long-term editors. Indeed if anything
that should
be a cause for concern that something that some people think (and maybe even
was) intended as a strawman got support. At least it wasn't titled "A moder
proposal about links"
>> 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.
This amounts to an ad hominem attack. If there is evidence that this has
occurred then show it. Otherwise...
> 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.