Larry Sanger wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
That's right, we know that you're talking about us, so don't think that we're not going to take your insults personally. "offensive political posturing" my eye! I care about this project as much as you do, whether you can believe it or not.
You're trying to *change* the project, Toby.
I'm trying to *change* the project??? Let's see, there's a discussion on a naming convention where I'm in favour of the change, but that's hardly central to the project. OTOH, I'm defending the NPOV, a very central point, to newbies. When you came on with ideas about how we were dying and you wanted to make us more acceptable to "experts", I was part of the chorus of scepticism that led you to take your ideas to the sifter project (where I think that they can do some good) and leave Wikipedia itself unaltered. Now I'm opposed both to the voting movement and to the idea of banning more people (even though these are coming from opposite groups), although at the same time I support continuing to ban vandals. I'm trying to *change* the project???
Larry Sanger wrote:
I think I'd be speaking for Julie Hoffman Kemp and Michael Tinkler, who are long gone, as well as Isis and many others who had less patience than they had.
You have their email addresses, right? Then you don't have to guess. Probably they'll agree with you, to some extent, but if you want us to count them as your supporters, not just your reasons, then ask them.
I am not guessing. I know them; I know they agree with this.
So you're still in touch with them about this. OK, that's fine.
- We will not tolerate biased content. The neutral point of view is not
open to vote; it's decided. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.
Other than TMC, we irresponsible anarchists agree.
Except that it seems that at least some of you don't want it to be declared as *set policy*. That was my point, Toby.
Sure, I'd want to keep NPOV as a set policy. It's a core value, which I'd like to see on mav's proposed terms of conditions page. Perhaps I'm to the right of the other "anarchists" on this, but even Cunc supports NPOV, even if he has his whole [[m:NPOV is an ideal]] thing.
From some perspective, once Jimbo's last minute dictatorial powers
pass into the hands of a democratically elected board of trustees, then even the NPOV might conceivably be changed -- heck, it might *conceivably* be changed *now* if Jimbo went mad and declared it no longer operational -- but then I would leave, like you, and join the inevitable fork.
Apologise in the sense of justifying the policy? Certainly.
Certainly *not*. We should not *constantly* have to defend long-standing policies against the objections of new people who happen not to like them.
Then how do you expect the new people to learn about them?
For example, Lir has no business moving [[Christopher Columbus]] to [[Cristóbal Colón]] *now*, but it's her business as a Wikipedian to discuss changing the policy on the list.
It seems to me she's wasting everyone's time. If she had asked "Gee, why is this the policy?" she might have learned something.
Not if everybody refused to defend it to her. Luckily mav is defending it well right now. As for wasting everybody's time, this seems unlikely when several people, including some old hands, have come out in agreement with her. We'll probably lose, and that's OK, but the idea that discussion is over is absurd. (She could certainly be more diplomatic, however!)
Gee, even KQ (the potential loss of whom is the immediate motivation of this post) doesn't want to ban anybody himself anymore. AFAICT, this is because of the practical problems with our methods, not because of some ideological desire to never ban anybody.
Let him speak for himself.
Like you let Julie, Michael, and Isis speak for themselves? I don't want to attribute anything to him that he hasn't said, which is why you see a disclaimer there with the "AFAICT". But he *has* told me that he doesn't want to ban anybody under the current system.
But he's subscribed to this list, so I hope that he'll clarify. I also help that he'll clarify whether is reasons for leaving include what you suggested: weariness at having to deal with us anarchists.
- To whatever extent we are or are not, or should be, a democracy, the
following is also true. We are a benevolent monarchy ruled by a "constitution" or, anyway, a developing body of common law that is not open to interpretation, but not vote. This has been the case from the beginning, and we aren't going to change that.
Wait, you mean that the proposers of *voting* are the *anarchists*? Do you still think that Erik is an anarchist or some such thing? Get a clue, man!
Uh, no, Toby, that isn't what I meant.
OK, then what do you mean? I thought that your opponents were anarchists, newbies, and trolls. Which of these is Erik? Actually, anarchist theory has a strong presumption that voting is a suspect and corruptible method of democracy (although certainly better than anything undemocratic to begin with).
IOW, let's decide before the discussion that we will change policy, and only leave the discussion open to *how*. I support a discussion about policy for banning what you call "trolls" (not that Helga, much less Lir, is *actually* a troll), but let's not a priori rule out the views of a sizable group.
Yes, I'm asking Jimbo to take a controversial stand that might offend a group of anarchists. What amazing gall I have.
I don't think that it requires gall to ask him to take such a stand. I *do* think that it requires gall to suggest that we make a change in policy that isn't widely agreed upon, and move to discussion only about *how* to make that change.
You just assume that Jimbo will agree with you about everything. Well, we'll see.
No, I certainly do not, Toby. In fact, I'm very worried that he might disagree on some point that I personally regard as key.
OK, good, I misinterpreted your suggestion that "these things shouldn't need saying". You only said that he *might* think that, and then that he "might not want to say all of them". My apologies.
I'm just saying that, IMO, Wikipedia is really suffering, and even losing people.
We're losing people and gaining people, and I don't just mean gaining Lir. If you think that nobody will or should ever leave Wikipedia (except people that you don't like and so banned, of course), then you're terribly naïve.
Toby, please--I founded this project and have watched it from the beginning. I know that people leave all the time. You obviously did not understand my point in your desire to poke holes in whatever I had to say.
I obviously didn't understand your point, but it wasn't through any desire to poke holes in whatever you say. My only desire is to do what's best for Wikipedia. I'm sorry that you and I don't agree on what that is, but both of our hearts are in the right place.
The point is that there are a lot of people who just will not work in an environment when trolls can wander around and wreak havoc with no public repercussions.
By "trolls", you mean people like TMC and Lir? While they both (damnedly) enjoy upsetting people, that's not why they're here; they're both trying to contribute. As Wikipedia grows, we'll get more annoying but well-meaning users, and unless we become a police state (in an appropriate metaphorical sense), we won't be able to get by with only users with thin skins. Luckily, we don't have to; trolls or no trolls, we still get more and more users all the time.
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell
Ah, the voice of arrogance. I mean, isn't Larry always *obviously* right? Anybody that disagrees with him is either an ideologue or an idiot, and that's how it'll always be.
Boy, have a look in the mirror, dude.
Well, let's see. I don't merely insist that my opinions are obvious when they're challenged, and I don't accuse those that disagree with me of being blinded by ideology or being idiots. If you want to return my insults with insults, then I'm sure that you can find some that actually fit.
But it wasn't fair to bring your sig into the discussion. I'm letting my personal feelings slip in here again. My apologies.
-- Toby