On 9 Sep 2007 at 20:11:03 +0000, fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
There has been extensive discussion, although not in a public forum. We have had enough of Judd Bagley and his site.
You decide things in backroom discussions, like the smoke filled rooms of old, and then you get peeved when people claim that there's a "cabal"?
I think there's a pretty big "we" around who's had enough of a clique getting to decide what things the rest of the peons are allowed to see or talk about.
The whole Bagley / Overstock / Weiss / Slim / etc. tangled mess gives off the stench of a thousand garbage dumps, and when there's that much stink around it's hard to tell for sure who it's coming from... but, as Kelly Martin said in her blog a while back, it exerts a pernicious influence on a lot of things all over Wikipedia, affecting article content decisions everywhere from [[Naked Short Selling]] to [[Lutheranism]], and policy decisions from banning policy to BADSITES and its progeny. It may be time for everybody outside that proverbial smoke filled room, everybody not entangled in the personal connections of the clique, to rise up and take back Wikipedia.
There is not any sort of cabal. You want these types of discussions more open, while there's another thread attacking us for making the same kind of discussions easier to find and saying it ruins reputations. The majority of users understand how the wiki works, and a minority just see conspiracies and cabals.
On 9/9/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 9 Sep 2007 at 20:11:03 +0000, fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
There has been extensive discussion, although not in a public forum. We have had enough of Judd Bagley and his site.
You decide things in backroom discussions, like the smoke filled rooms of old, and then you get peeved when people claim that there's a "cabal"?
I think there's a pretty big "we" around who's had enough of a clique getting to decide what things the rest of the peons are allowed to see or talk about.
The whole Bagley / Overstock / Weiss / Slim / etc. tangled mess gives off the stench of a thousand garbage dumps, and when there's that much stink around it's hard to tell for sure who it's coming from... but, as Kelly Martin said in her blog a while back, it exerts a pernicious influence on a lot of things all over Wikipedia, affecting article content decisions everywhere from [[Naked Short Selling]] to [[Lutheranism]], and policy decisions from banning policy to BADSITES and its progeny. It may be time for everybody outside that proverbial smoke filled room, everybody not entangled in the personal connections of the clique, to rise up and take back Wikipedia.
-- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/9/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
There is not any sort of cabal. You want these types of discussions more open, while there's another thread attacking us for making the same kind of discussions easier to find and saying it ruins reputations. The majority of users understand how the wiki works, and a minority just see conspiracies and cabals.
The fact that some discussions are kept easy to find so as to ruin people's reputations while other discussions are kept top-secret so as to protect other people's reputations seems to me to be problematic in and of itself. Why the double-standard?
'as to ruin someones reputation'? You severely over estimate how coordinated we are as a community. For god sake, we cant settle on anything, you think we can come to a decision on this and keep it secret? As for protecting this particular asshole its far from that. He's dangerous, it seems they were simply protecting previous victims from retribution. I really feel they arbcom should be thanked for taking care of this with so little mess.
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/9/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
There is not any sort of cabal. You want these types of discussions more open, while there's another thread attacking us for making the same kind of discussions easier to find and saying it ruins reputations. The majority of users understand how the wiki works, and a minority just see conspiracies and cabals.
The fact that some discussions are kept easy to find so as to ruin people's reputations while other discussions are kept top-secret so as to protect other people's reputations seems to me to be problematic in and of itself. Why the double-standard?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/9/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
'as to ruin someones reputation'? You severely over estimate how coordinated we are as a community. For god sake, we cant settle on anything, you think we can come to a decision on this and keep it secret? As for protecting this particular asshole its far from that. He's dangerous, it seems they were simply protecting previous victims from retribution. I really feel they arbcom should be thanked for taking care of this with so little mess.
The fact of the matter is that you can call someone dangerous and an asshole on this public forum, but if someone deemed to so much as criticize certain untouchables they'd be kicked off the mailing list in a heartbeat.
One of the very people being protected by this particular BADSITES coverup was making disparaging remarks about the proprietor of the site just two days ago.
I'll leave it at that, lest I be the one kicked off the mailing list.
Brock Weller wrote:
'as to ruin someones reputation'? You severely over estimate how coordinated we are as a community. For god sake, we cant settle on anything, you think we can come to a decision on this and keep it secret? As for protecting this particular asshole its far from that. He's dangerous, it seems they were simply protecting previous victims from retribution. I really feel they arbcom should be thanked for taking care of this with so little mess.
I never heard of Bagley until this thread started. Now I read comments from someone, who has also proven the unreliability of his judgement on something as trivial as trivia, libeling a living person by calling him an asshole and dangerous, and expecting us to trust these comments.
I believe that even those accused of the most heinous crimes have a right to a defence, and even if they would not want to appear here personally there need to be standards in the way that we deal with such claims.
If there is not any sort of cabal or conspiracy, why bring it up? Why make up these vicious stories pretending that others are seeing them? What you seem to forget is that wikis are about communities getting together to find a mutually acceptable position; it's not about a handful of people who decide what is good for others, or how others should be protected. For many of us that is what was wrong with the old way of doing things.
Ec
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/9/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
There is not any sort of cabal. You want these types of discussions more open, while there's another thread attacking us for making the same kind of discussions easier to find and saying it ruins reputations. The majority of users understand how the wiki works, and a minority just see conspiracies and cabals.
The fact that some discussions are kept easy to find so as to ruin people's reputations while other discussions are kept top-secret so as to protect other people's reputations seems to me to be problematic in and of itself. Why the double-standard?
On 10/09/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I never heard of Bagley until this thread started. Now I read comments from someone, who has also proven the unreliability of his judgement on something as trivial as trivia, libeling a living person by calling him an asshole and dangerous, and expecting us to trust these comments.
If these hurtful/rude/attack/libelous/whatever comments are on Wikimedia servers, I suggest they be excised. (Disclaimer: I have not read them personally, so I can't judge what they are.)
I believe that even those accused of the most heinous crimes have a right to a defence, and even if they would not want to appear here personally there need to be standards in the way that we deal with such claims.
If there is not any sort of cabal or conspiracy, why bring it up? Why make up these vicious stories pretending that others are seeing them? What you seem to forget is that wikis are about communities getting together to find a mutually acceptable position; it's not about a handful of people who decide what is good for others, or how others should be protected. For many of us that is what was wrong with the old way of doing things.
Ec
When it comes to the safety / health / feelings of individual human beings, the encyclopaedia is not involved - what matters are the individuals. Consensus is all well and good for talking about encyclopaedia articles, but that doesn't give the Wikipaedia community the right to start destroying real people's lives.
I don't think under any of the scenarios real or imagined presented here that the Wikipedia community is the one that has "started" destroying real people's lives. Surely it is the people outside trying to use us for bad ends that bear the responsibility for "starting". Everyone here is trying to prevent further harm--it is just that some of us think that anything giving the appearance of a cover-up is the least likely way to do it, and will further harm both individuals and the encyclopedia. There is certainly enough precedent for that.
On 9/10/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 10/09/2007, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I never heard of Bagley until this thread started. Now I read comments from someone, who has also proven the unreliability of his judgement on something as trivial as trivia, libeling a living person by calling him an asshole and dangerous, and expecting us to trust these comments.
If these hurtful/rude/attack/libelous/whatever comments are on Wikimedia servers, I suggest they be excised. (Disclaimer: I have not read them personally, so I can't judge what they are.)
I believe that even those accused of the most heinous crimes have a right to a defence, and even if they would not want to appear here personally there need to be standards in the way that we deal with such claims.
If there is not any sort of cabal or conspiracy, why bring it up? Why make up these vicious stories pretending that others are seeing them? What you seem to forget is that wikis are about communities getting together to find a mutually acceptable position; it's not about a handful of people who decide what is good for others, or how others should be protected. For many of us that is what was wrong with the old way of doing things.
Ec
When it comes to the safety / health / feelings of individual human beings, the encyclopaedia is not involved - what matters are the individuals. Consensus is all well and good for talking about encyclopaedia articles, but that doesn't give the Wikipaedia community the right to start destroying real people's lives.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Armed Blowfish wrote:
On 10/09/2007, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I never heard of Bagley until this thread started. ...
If these hurtful/rude/attack/libelous/whatever comments are on Wikimedia servers, ...
Could you please explain why I have received this, and several other messages two or three times?
I know that I take a liberal view in regards to list moderation, and that you like to send a lot of messages, but little purpose is served by sending the same message multiple times.
Ec
Maybe he sent it to you *and* the list, so you received it twice?
On 9/10/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Armed Blowfish wrote:
On 10/09/2007, Ray Saintonge wrote:
I never heard of Bagley until this thread started. ...
If these hurtful/rude/attack/libelous/whatever comments are on Wikimedia servers, ...
Could you please explain why I have received this, and several other messages two or three times?
I know that I take a liberal view in regards to list moderation, and that you like to send a lot of messages, but little purpose is served by sending the same message multiple times.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/10/07, Casey Brown cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe he sent it to you *and* the list, so you received it twice?
Testing... :)
—C.W.
on 9/10/07 2:34 AM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
What you seem to forget is that wikis are about communities getting together to find a mutually acceptable position; it's not about a handful of people who decide what is good for others, or how others should be protected. For many of us that is what was wrong with the old way of doing things.
Absolutely -YES!
Marc Riddell
Thats not even related to this thread. You've lost the trivia debate months ago, get over it, you're dragging it into unrelated threads now. Bit immature, dont you think? Now, this topic is new and unrelated. Try to stay on topic.
On 9/10/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
'as to ruin someones reputation'? You severely over estimate how coordinated we are as a community. For god sake, we cant settle on anything, you think we can come to a decision on this and keep it secret? As for protecting this particular asshole its far from that. He's dangerous, it seems they were simply protecting previous victims from retribution. I really feel they arbcom should be thanked for taking care of this with so little mess.
I never heard of Bagley until this thread started. Now I read comments from someone, who has also proven the unreliability of his judgement on something as trivial as trivia, libeling a living person by calling him an asshole and dangerous, and expecting us to trust these comments.
I believe that even those accused of the most heinous crimes have a right to a defence, and even if they would not want to appear here personally there need to be standards in the way that we deal with such claims.
If there is not any sort of cabal or conspiracy, why bring it up? Why make up these vicious stories pretending that others are seeing them? What you seem to forget is that wikis are about communities getting together to find a mutually acceptable position; it's not about a handful of people who decide what is good for others, or how others should be protected. For many of us that is what was wrong with the old way of doing things.
Ec
On 9/9/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/9/07, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
There is not any sort of cabal. You want these types of discussions more open, while there's another thread attacking us for making the same kind of discussions easier to find and saying it ruins reputations. The majority of users understand how the wiki works, and a minority just see conspiracies and cabals.
The fact that some discussions are kept easy to find so as to ruin people's reputations while other discussions are kept top-secret so as to protect other people's reputations seems to me to be problematic in and of itself. Why the double-standard?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Brock Weller wrote:
Thats not even related to this thread. You've lost the trivia debate months ago, get over it, you're dragging it into unrelated threads now. Bit immature, dont you think? Now, this topic is new and unrelated. Try to stay on topic.
Your declaration of victory sounds as if it should have been pronounced from the deck of an aircraft carrier.
Ec
On 9/10/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
'as to ruin someones reputation'? You severely over estimate how coordinated we are as a community. For god sake, we cant settle on anything, you think we can come to a decision on this and keep it secret? As for protecting this particular asshole its far from that. He's dangerous, it seems they were simply protecting previous victims from retribution. I really feel they arbcom should be thanked for taking care of this with so little mess.
I never heard of Bagley until this thread started. Now I read comments from someone, who has also proven the unreliability of his judgement on something as trivial as trivia, libeling a living person by calling him an asshole and dangerous, and expecting us to trust these comments.
I believe that even those accused of the most heinous crimes have a right to a defence, and even if they would not want to appear here personally there need to be standards in the way that we deal with such claims.
If there is not any sort of cabal or conspiracy, why bring it up? Why make up these vicious stories pretending that others are seeing them? What you seem to forget is that wikis are about communities getting together to find a mutually acceptable position; it's not about a handful of people who decide what is good for others, or how others should be protected. For many of us that is what was wrong with the old way of doing things.
Ec
On 9/9/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
What you seem to forget is that wikis are about communities getting together to find a mutually acceptable position; it's not about a handful of people who decide what is good for others, or how others should be protected. For many of us that is what was wrong with the old way of doing things.
Ec
Oh, I hope this is true, that wikis are about communties making decisions, not about a handful of people who decide what is good for others. I doubt it is true. But I hope it is.
KP