mav writes:
No! You are reading too much into my words. You never said that it is possible for us to keep from bickering and wrangling so my above
statement
was not directed at you but at Wikipedia skeptics in general who /do/
say
exactly that (and then fault us for not accomplishing this artificial
ideal).
Well, my point was that it seems wikipedia could be more collegial. Some conflict is to be expected, yes, but I rather suspect some people look forward to it when it comes. Some people live for it, some merely tolerate it, some people are bothered by it and avoid it. I'm formerly of class 1 (horrible arrogant troll I was 5 years ago), recently of class 2, moving towards class 3. I guess this is my problem, not everyone else's, except I wonder how many people really _enjoy_ acrimony--fewer than 12 on the 'pedia, I imagine, probably fewer than six, and I wonder how many of the other several hundred active contributors truly are put off by it. Those kind of people tend to be quieter about it until they've had enough, and then they leave, with or without explanation. I think Julie was one of those people; and losing her was a considerable loss.
As usual I was only thinking about the larger picture and was majorly insensitive in how I presented myself.
I don't know about all that. And currently I am the champ of sloppy writing.
Please except my sincerest apologies for being so stupidly unclear.
That's ok. I'm sorry for reading it wrong. :-) Offense taken, momentarily, then put back down.
best wishes, I will see you all (except the lurkers) ;-) in a few weeks.
kq
|From: koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com |Cc: |Sender: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 22:18:58 -0800 | |mav writes: |>No! You are reading too much into my words. You never said that it is |>possible for us to keep from bickering and wrangling so my above |statement |>was not directed at you but at Wikipedia skeptics in general who /do/ |say |>exactly that (and then fault us for not accomplishing this artificial |ideal). | |Well, my point was that it seems wikipedia could be more collegial. |Some conflict is to be expected, yes, but I rather suspect some people |look forward to it when it comes. Some people live for it, some |merely tolerate it, some people are bothered by it and avoid it. I'm |formerly of class 1 (horrible arrogant troll I was 5 years ago), |recently of class 2, moving towards class 3. I guess this is my |problem, not everyone else's, except I wonder how many people really |_enjoy_ acrimony--fewer than 12 on the 'pedia, I imagine, probably |fewer than six, and I wonder how many of the other several hundred |active contributors truly are put off by it. Those kind of people |tend to be quieter about it until they've had enough, and then they |leave, with or without explanation. I think Julie was one of those |people; and losing her was a considerable loss.
I don't think I'm a skeptic, I believe in NPOV, and I believe it can be achieved, but I'm worn out. I am going to join class 3 and avoid all conflict. A few pointed questions and an errant indentation of a talk page comment have earned me a bitter enemy, neither a nice person, nor an interesting one. Asking, and then trying to explain, what was new about [[new imperialism]] led to weeks of fussing and fighting about a topic that was peripheral to me. I helped, but wouldn't an article on ''[[Bleak House]]'' or ''[[The Way We Live Now]]'' have been a better expenditure of my time?
I just don't have any interest in struggling with anyone anymore. A few tussles here and there (and yes, wisecracks and smarty-pants remarks) were fun, but from now on when people have no commitment to anything but conflict, they're going to have to conflict with someone else. There aren't many of them. I hope they lose, but I'm out of bullets.
I'm going to concentrate on novelists and pop music and jazz and language and and copy editing and other odds and ends where I have some scraps of knowledge and just let the article on [[Richard Wagner]] go to hell without my protest and [[remote viewing]] can claim that "viewers" have seen Pontius Pilate's signature on Jesus's death warrant and I won't say a word.
By saying that I am going to join class 3 and avoid all conflict, I am saying that I am surrendering the field to the anti-NPOV forces. I don't know that I have distinguished myself in this area, but I have tried. I'm not going to try any more. In the meantime, if people want to write blatant and stupid articles, I hope someone else will stop them.
I'll be off bolding alternate forms of article titles, putting song titles in quotes and album titles in italics and writing little articles about Trollope and Dickens and Pinetop Perkins, sincerely hoping that none of the troubling people will bother to track me down there. But each time they do track me down, I'm dropping out of the topic. And, if I drop out of enough topics, if even [[punctuation]] and [[English plurals]] start drawing the energy vampires, then I guess I'll just be gone for good.
I'll ask my questions where they have a chance of being answered civilly. The new person writing articles about [[rodeo]] took my skeptical but honest questions about [[bareback bronc]], [[saddle bronc]] and [[bull riding]] in hand and just plain answered them, never bothering to accuse me of being a PETA member or a disgruntled cowboy failure.
Someone just popped in to [[Talk:Mumia Abu Jamal]] to compliment us on the achievement of NPOV. We worked on that one back in August. It seems decades ago. I just don't think it would have happened that way now and I'm fearful of even mentioning it, but since I am taking it off my watchlist, maybe I won't hear of any bad things happening to it.
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
PS - I just remembered I still have a little backlog on the [[Bombing of Dresden in World War II]] and [[David Irving]] that I promised to get off my chest, but even there, one peep of protest and I'm out. And then, no more like it. See you in [[knot]]s.
<snip>
| |best wishes, I will see you all (except the lurkers) ;-) in a few weeks. | |kq |_______________________________________________ |WikiEN-l mailing list |WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org |http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
I'm on the verge of following Tom's lead. What's the point of trying to even try, when people like Lir/Vera are allowed back without warning and continue to slash their way through the 'pedia with no one even bothering to let us know that they were responsible for allowing them back in, and what their rationale was. Zoe Tom Parmenter tompar@world.std.com wrote:|From: koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com |Cc: |Sender: wikien-l-admin@wikipedia.org |Reply-To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org |Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 22:18:58 -0800 | |mav writes: |>No! You are reading too much into my words. You never said that it is |>possible for us to keep from bickering and wrangling so my above |statement |>was not directed at you but at Wikipedia skeptics in general who /do/ |say |>exactly that (and then fault us for not accomplishing this artificial |ideal). | |Well, my point was that it seems wikipedia could be more collegial. |Some conflict is to be expected, yes, but I rather suspect some people |look forward to it when it comes. Some people live for it, some |merely tolerate it, some people are bothered by it and avoid it. I'm |formerly of class 1 (horrible arrogant troll I was 5 years ago), |recently of class 2, moving towards class 3. I guess this is my |problem, not everyone else's, except I wonder how many people really |_enjoy_ acrimony--fewer than 12 on the 'pedia, I imagine, probably |fewer than six, and I wonder how many of the other several hundred |active contributors truly are put off by it. Those kind of people |tend to be quieter about it until they've had enough, and then they |leave, with or without explanation. I think Julie was one of those |people; and losing her was a considerable loss.
I don't think I'm a skeptic, I believe in NPOV, and I believe it can be achieved, but I'm worn out. I am going to join class 3 and avoid all conflict. A few pointed questions and an errant indentation of a talk page comment have earned me a bitter enemy, neither a nice person, nor an interesting one. Asking, and then trying to explain, what was new about [[new imperialism]] led to weeks of fussing and fighting about a topic that was peripheral to me. I helped, but wouldn't an article on ''[[Bleak House]]'' or ''[[The Way We Live Now]]'' have been a better expenditure of my time?
I just don't have any interest in struggling with anyone anymore. A few tussles here and there (and yes, wisecracks and smarty-pants remarks) were fun, but from now on when people have no commitment to anything but conflict, they're going to have to conflict with someone else. There aren't many of them. I hope they lose, but I'm out of bullets.
I'm going to concentrate on novelists and pop music and jazz and language and and copy editing and other odds and ends where I have some scraps of knowledge and just let the article on [[Richard Wagner]] go to hell without my protest and [[remote viewing]] can claim that "viewers" have seen Pontius Pilate's signature on Jesus's death warrant and I won't say a word.
By saying that I am going to join class 3 and avoid all conflict, I am saying that I am surrendering the field to the anti-NPOV forces. I don't know that I have distinguished myself in this area, but I have tried. I'm not going to try any more. In the meantime, if people want to write blatant and stupid articles, I hope someone else will stop them.
I'll be off bolding alternate forms of article titles, putting song titles in quotes and album titles in italics and writing little articles about Trollope and Dickens and Pinetop Perkins, sincerely hoping that none of the troubling people will bother to track me down there. But each time they do track me down, I'm dropping out of the topic. And, if I drop out of enough topics, if even [[punctuation]] and [[English plurals]] start drawing the energy vampires, then I guess I'll just be gone for good.
I'll ask my questions where they have a chance of being answered civilly. The new person writing articles about [[rodeo]] took my skeptical but honest questions about [[bareback bronc]], [[saddle bronc]] and [[bull riding]] in hand and just plain answered them, never bothering to accuse me of being a PETA member or a disgruntled cowboy failure.
Someone just popped in to [[Talk:Mumia Abu Jamal]] to compliment us on the achievement of NPOV. We worked on that one back in August. It seems decades ago. I just don't think it would have happened that way now and I'm fearful of even mentioning it, but since I am taking it off my watchlist, maybe I won't hear of any bad things happening to it.
Tom Parmenter Ortolan88
PS - I just remembered I still have a little backlog on the [[Bombing of Dresden in World War II]] and [[David Irving]] that I promised to get off my chest, but even there, one peep of protest and I'm out. And then, no more like it. See you in [[knot]]s.
| |best wishes, I will see you all (except the lurkers) ;-) in a few weeks. | |kq |_______________________________________________ |WikiEN-l mailing list |WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org |http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Isis is really starting to rattle me. She is now saying she's going to sue me in Delaware, whether I show up to defend myself or not. - http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales
I know that she doesn't have a leg to stand on, but still, this is not fun. This goes against our collegiate spirit as much as TMC's username did. Doesn't Wikipedia have a policy on making threats?
Isis is really starting to rattle me. She is now saying she's going to sue me in Delaware, whether I show up to defend myself or not. - http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales
I know that she doesn't have a leg to stand on, but still, this is not fun. This goes against our collegiate spirit as much as TMC's username did. Doesn't Wikipedia have a policy on making threats?
Can someone with a legal background explain what happens if Tarquin does not appear in a Delaware court? Is a "default judgment" then likely?
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Isis is really starting to rattle me. She is now saying she's going to sue me in Delaware, whether I show up to defend myself or not. - http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales
I know that she doesn't have a leg to stand on, but still, this is not fun. This goes against our collegiate spirit as much as TMC's username did. Doesn't Wikipedia have a policy on making threats?
Can someone with a legal background explain what happens if Tarquin does not appear in a Delaware court? Is a "default judgment" then likely?
Although I believe that Isis should be reprimanded for her lawyer tactic of intimidation with idle threats, this is not yet at the point where withdrawal of sysop privileges should be withdrawn. I saw her original posting before it reached this point, and although she denies that it was her intent, it's easy to see how Tarquin could have interpreted her as saying that all photographs were copyright exempt.
I don't doubt that she could get a default judgement in Delaware. I believe that Delaware is considered a soft touch by juristdiction shoppers because of this. Whether that judgement can be enforced outside of Delaware is an other matter. Since Tarquin is in England, if Isis thinks she has a valid case it should be filed in England. That would be the honourable thing to do. If I were the one being victimized by these threats, I would ignore Delaware jurisdiction.
Eclecticology
WE SHOULD NOT WRITE TO MUCH IN THE MAILING LIST OR WIKIPEDIA ABOUT ISIS/TARQUIN IT'S BETTER TO SWITCH TO PRIVATE MAIL
Zoe wrote:
I'm on the verge of following Tom's lead. What's the point of trying to even try, when people like Lir/Vera are allowed back without warning and continue to slash their way through the 'pedia with no one even bothering to let us know that they were responsible for allowing them back in, and what their rationale was.
Please don't take that as indicative of anything. Vera is still banned, and if she's around, that just shows we need more sysops to make sure that stuff like this is nipped in the bud.
--Jimbo
Tom Parmenter wrote:
I don't think I'm a skeptic, I believe in NPOV, and I believe it can be achieved, but I'm worn out. I am going to join class 3 and avoid all conflict.
[...]
By saying that I am going to join class 3 and avoid all conflict, I am saying that I am surrendering the field to the anti-NPOV forces. I don't know that I have distinguished myself in this area, but I have tried. I'm not going to try any more. In the meantime, if people want to write blatant and stupid articles, I hope someone else will stop them.
What I'm hoping is that we can compile some suggestions for a middle ground. How can we avoid conflict without surrendering the field to "the anti-NPOV forces"?
-------
The thing that pains me most is when I see good people at each other's throats. *Those* are the ones we should be able to avoid. Yes, there will always be a tiny majority of insufferable jerks. Those can be banned if they get bad enough. But sometimes what happens around here is that good people get mad at each other, and things spiral out of control.
--Jimbo