On 28 Aug 2007 at 14:57:16 -0700, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Either the system works... we are mostly honorable people, and have enough honest and principled people that if something seriously sinister started someone would stand up and publically announce it and call for it to end.
...and get labeled a "troll", his messages summarily deleted as trolling, and eventually he gets banned, then any subsequent person who expresses similar ideas gets labeled a "sockpuppet" and banned too, even more summarily. And the clique pats themselves on the back for defeating another bad guy.
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 28 Aug 2007 at 14:57:16 -0700, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Either the system works... we are mostly honorable people, and have enough honest and principled people that if something seriously sinister started someone would stand up and publically announce it and call for it to end.
...and get labeled a "troll", his messages summarily deleted as trolling, and eventually he gets banned, then any subsequent person who expresses similar ideas gets labeled a "sockpuppet" and banned too, even more summarily. And the clique pats themselves on the back for defeating another bad guy.
I don't think that's a fair description of what goes on at all.
On 8/29/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 28 Aug 2007 at 14:57:16 -0700, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Either the system works... we are mostly honorable people, and have enough honest and principled people that if something seriously sinister started someone would stand up and publically announce it and call for it to end.
...and get labeled a "troll", his messages summarily deleted as trolling, and eventually he gets banned, then any subsequent person who expresses similar ideas gets labeled a "sockpuppet" and banned too, even more summarily. And the clique pats themselves on the back for defeating another bad guy.
I don't think that's a fair description of what goes on at all.
Might not be fair, but it reflects the perception of how we deal with whistle-blowers. Arguably we haven't had a serious case of something rotten in the state of Wikipedia being exposed, but is there any assurance that how we deal with false whistle-blowers will not be the same way we deal with real ones?
Johnleemk
John Lee wrote:
Might not be fair, but it reflects the perception of how we deal with whistle-blowers. Arguably we haven't had a serious case of something rotten in the state of Wikipedia being exposed, but is there any assurance that how we deal with false whistle-blowers will not be the same way we deal with real ones?
I don't think we really have "whistle-blowers" because we are vibrant open community which is constantly engaged in honest self-assessment and internal dialog, in an atmosphere where respectful dissent and diversity of viewpoints is not just tolerated but actively encouraged.
And yes, this is never perfect, but I think we do a pretty good job of it.
--Jimbo
On 8/28/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
John Lee wrote:
Might not be fair, but it reflects the perception of how we deal with whistle-blowers. Arguably we haven't had a serious case of something rotten in the state of Wikipedia being exposed, but is there any assurance that how we deal with false whistle-blowers will not be the same way we deal with real ones?
I don't think we really have "whistle-blowers" because we are vibrant open community which is constantly engaged in honest self-assessment and internal dialog, in an atmosphere where respectful dissent and diversity of viewpoints is not just tolerated but actively encouraged.
And yes, this is never perfect, but I think we do a pretty good job of it.
I think we have a lot of potential whistle-blowers; people who would say something if they detect what they believe to be misbehavior, and are credible in the community.
The recent SV / JayJG / oversight issue was largely brought to "the community's" attention by such a person, who is a member of "the core insiders group", standing up and saying "Hey! It looks like we had a real problem here!".
It looks like the underlying truth to that was that he was fooled by an external troll, taking a small amount of legit concerning evidence and "sexing it up". But, he saw enough to convince him that there might be a legit issue, and he stood up and said so.
And he's taken some lumps for doing so. But he did it anyways.
I didn't lose respect for him over this, despite coming to the conclusion that we were all basically trolled (in the "someone outside intentionally acted malignly to stir up trouble" sense). It might have helped if we'd had a calmer initial look at the "evidence", but he thought there was a legit case to blow the whistle, and did. I can respect that.
on 8/28/07 11:56 PM, Jimmy Wales at jwales@wikia.com wrote:
John Lee wrote:
Might not be fair, but it reflects the perception of how we deal with whistle-blowers. Arguably we haven't had a serious case of something rotten in the state of Wikipedia being exposed, but is there any assurance that how we deal with false whistle-blowers will not be the same way we deal with real ones?
I don't think we really have "whistle-blowers" because we are vibrant open community which is constantly engaged in honest self-assessment and internal dialog, in an atmosphere where respectful dissent and diversity of viewpoints is not just tolerated but actively encouraged.
And yes, this is never perfect, but I think we do a pretty good job of it.
Jimmy,
Much of what you say here is, unfortunately, purely theoretical. There is a strong (if misguided) blind loyalty factor which causes many to take any dissent or criticism of the Project personally; and their reactions reflect this. Critics are seen as enemies at the gate; even when they are behind that gate.
Marc Riddell
On 8/28/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
...is there any assurance that how we deal with false whistle-blowers will not be the same way we deal with real ones?
We'd need some way to actually tell the difference. Obviously, different variations will arise, each with a proper metaphor, whether it be a referee, a freight train, a tea-kettle, the Keystone Cops, or the familiar "car window not all the way up" sound. Easy enough for the human ear to distinguish, but not so for the eye.
[WHISTLE BLOWING] CAPTAIN: What you say?
One can whistle the same note for several paragraphs and it may never become apparent whether the "human at the other end" is laughing, or crying, or cursing, or humming, or (coincidentally) whistling while writing the stuff. They could be horribly off-key too, but we wouldn't know.
—C.W.
On 8/28/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 28 Aug 2007 at 14:57:16 -0700, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Either the system works... we are mostly honorable people, and have enough honest and principled people that if something seriously sinister started someone would stand up and publically announce it and call for it to end.
...and get labeled a "troll", his messages summarily deleted as trolling, and eventually he gets banned, then any subsequent person who expresses similar ideas gets labeled a "sockpuppet" and banned too, even more summarily. And the clique pats themselves on the back for defeating another bad guy.
None of these things have happened to Cyde.
A lot of this is in AGF - if it's someone "we know" who believes there's an issue, even if they turn out to be wrong, they won't generally be taken to be trying to "just stir shit up".
We don't AGF about a lot of people who have dissapointed the community, to the point that it's hard for them to make legitimate reasonable criticisms in many venues now. That is clearly a legit problem.