On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:52:49 -0500, "The Mangoe" the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
I have to correct a fundamental misconception here. The cabal (TINC) has no vendetta. The admin community has a job to do, and that job includes protecting editors from being harassed and threatened, protecting Wikipedia form being vandalised and protecting the content from being biased by people aggressively pushing an agenda.
All of those are more or less noble goals, but it can be argued as to how they interact with the ultimate intent of the project. The point that Dan T. and I have made over and over is that the zeal in pursuing these people is itself disruptive and has resulted in a string of incidents where the admins have acted contrary to the interests of the *encyclopedia* in their deference to (some, maybe most) of its contributors.
I don't think it's quite that simple.
For example:
* link added to article * link removed * discussion * consensus * link replaced
Or:
* link added to article * link removed * link reinserted "ZOMG! CENSORSHIP!" * link removed "ZOMG! ATTACK!" * (discussion starts) * link reinserted "ZOMG! CENSORSHIP!" * link removed "ZOMG! ATTACK!" : : : * link reinserted "ZOMG! CENSORSHIP!" * link removed "ZOMG! ATTACK!" * link reinserted "ZOMG! CENSORSHIP!" * link removed "ZOMG! ATTACK!" * consensus * link replaced * link removed "ZOMG! ATTACK!" * link reinserted "ZOMG! CENSORSHIP!"
etc. etc.
You see, I think it's the *internal argument* that's poisonous, not the argument with the idiots. The idiots just exploit our internal divisions, as trolls always do.
What you call a misconception, I call a failure on your part to see some parts of the picture.
- - -8<- - - - - -
Wait a minute. You are attributing all fault to one side here. A big part of the problem is also the absolute determination of a small number of people - the most prominent of whom are actually members of WR and ED - to protect the right to link to sites which just about everybody agrees are of negligible;e to zero value as sources for encyclopaedic content.
But this is beside the point. The point is, we have by now a pretty good idea of what actual consensus is, which is that we don't use crap sites as sources, we don't link to harassment in discussions, we sit down and talk rather than edit war. That's what's happening in the discussion at WP:LINKLOVE right now.
Nobody held a gun to JB196's head and forced him to create over 500 sockpuppets, vandalise hundreds of articles, subvert an admin and pursue a vendetta against Wikipedia in general.
Well, and nobody put a gun to WIll Beback's head and made him vandalize every article using TNH as a reference either.
You what?
Either way, the phrase "put a gun to his head" is excessive; and besides, as long as it's phrased in these "us vs. the lawless them", every kind of excess or for that matter self-serving abuse by admins is authorized. There are a lot of "thin blue line" dramas, and there are a lot of "cop gone bad" dramas too. If we can bring this back to earth and accept the possibility that Admins are tempted to be overzealous, and that groups of admins are tempted to informally form into a faction tempted into valuing self-defense over proportionality, I think the drama could be brought to an end.
Er, but it *is* us versus the lawless them. They are banned, but they keep coming back and vandalising Wikipedia.
Part of my perspective on this is that in being active on the internet back before it even existed as such, I've been put through a lot of invective. I accept that posting in public makes one a target, and I don't accept guarantees to anonymity to the degree that BADSITES proposed because they are promises that cannot be kept. It's already annoying enough to have POV-pushers and random jerks damaging the articles, that I also have to ride herd on the policy-cops damaging articles and discussions too.
I was running internet seminars in 1995, which was pretty early in the UK's net use.
But you are concerned about a problem that essentially does not exist. The number of articles from which attack site links were improperly removed is, as far as I can make out, below 5. Which is, what, one quarter of one thousandth of one percent of all articles? If only all our problems were that small!
It's a very small problem, and it's very easily solved, using the tried and tested [[WP:BRD]] model. Rather than the [[WP:BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR and argue endlessly]] model which seems to have prevailed more recently.
Guy (JzG)